"saving thousands of American lives with access to healthcare"
You seem to be conflating insurance with healthcare. The only way this is helping is to allow people to get through the usual "do you have insurance" screen doctors use to determine whether people are likely to be able to pay the bill. Afterward they still get a bill and that bill is anywhere from 2-10x higher than before the "affordable care act".
Before the affordable care act my employer provided free insurance to everyone on the payroll. There was a $1500 deductible and afterward most things were covered 100% while a few categories were 90%. $5 prescriptions which started immediately not after deductible. Since the affordable care act that is a $6500 deductible before ANYTHING is covered including prescriptions, afterward 80% covered, and it costs me about $1200/month.
I had to go to the ER once and get stitches in the days without coverage. The bill was $200 and I was outraged there was ONE bill, from the hospital. My little brother went in with chronic stomach issues that meant he hadn't eaten in two weeks, they performed no tests, told him it was a thing they were starting to see and had no treatment. Subsequently, he was sent over $15,000 in bills from various parties, the hospital charges you, the doctor double charges you, etc.
If you actually think the affordable care act is a good thing you've lost your damn mind. We could have public healthcare, we could have private healthcare, but this half assed measured is definitely much worse than a serious effort at either system.
"Democrats support this, and enacted Net Neutrality in the first place."
We have never had net neutrality, we had a set of measures which CLAIMED to be net neutrality and permitted anything but. Providers could prioritize traffic, shape it, and black ports, in some cases without disclosure, with disclosure buried in legalese somewhere they could do anything they wanted.
But lets see, did they do this anywhere else? How about nsa warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance?
Again the D's put through a bill to "fix" this problem, it actually legalized nsa activities but it had a catchy title suggesting it stopped them.
Just like Hillary admitted during the debates. The D's love to take a popular view in public while having different motivations "to get things done" in private. Their hero is Lincoln who used the issue of slavery to consolidate more federal power which meant personal power for himself than any president in history.
Don't confuse SAYING you care about things with actually caring about them especially with regards to a politician.
"Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed."
No, the Democrats SAY they support net neutrality which is a different thing altogether. Remember the rules the FCC overturned were called "net neutrality" but didn't actually block the abuses we are all concerned about. Providers could essentially do whatever they wanted with a bit of fine print "disclosing" it somewhere.
This. You actually have to sign a deal agreeing there will be no lawsuit, public commentary, or unemployment claim.
Verizon lays off so many people there unemployment rates would have to be insane by point without these agreements. Also, they aren't giving everyone sixty weeks. It might have changed but a couple years ago there is a formula and it requires several years to qualify.
Most importantly, when they do these things it isn't voluntary. Your choice is to be gone with the agreement or be gone without the agreement. They are canning you either way.
"A low rate does not mean zero, especially when it comes to human lives."
A low rate can be effectively zero. If it were zero we'd have no concept of death. People day, every day, thousands and thousands of people die from all sorts of things.
"So by your numbers 133 people are injured by a hate crime a year."
Yes, while I don't have the statistics to back it up based on my conversations with ER nurses I'd put that number to be dramatically lower than the number of people who are injured due to shoving a light bulb up their rectum each year. 2.8 million people were hospitalized due to injuries in 2015. 14,800 died from opioid overdose. 325,000 children were injured from sports and recreational related activities. In other words, so low relative to almost any other cause as to be effectively zero. There are so few that there isn't enough work across the entire country of 325m+ people to dedicate 1 doctor and have him work full time. The cost of the comments from the news correspondents trying to create the impression this is a serious issue in a single day would pay that doctor for the medical treatment of everyone it happens to for the next 5-10 years.
"Your original statement of there not being people killed or maimed in the US by racists is false."
That is not a COMPLETE statement I've made. You've cherry picked a headliner statement and ignored the text below it where I myself indicate deaths. I also did not say "by a racist" I said FOR racist nonsense. Most of the people who are killed by racists are prison gang members killing other prison gang members... most frequently, they are killing people of the same race!
High profile anecdotes mean nothing. There are over 325 million people in the US and no shortage of murders any given day, hour or even minute rare stops being rare with those kind of numbers.
But there are not known hate crime related deaths, even though they automatically count it as one if someone racist was involved, every minute or hour because they are rare. Again, since 2015, you are three times more like likely to be killed by lightning strike.
This is just a political drum that gets beaten hard, loud, and often to drive fear, uncertainly, and doubt.
"But they were acknowledged as crimes and big deals, they got attention,"
Yup
" things changed."
*Scratches head* When? Probably about the same time as net neutrality issues, copyright cartel abuses, and nsa domestic wiretapping. As in, things were passed that claimed to be intended to fix the problems but actually gave legitimacy to the actions instead.
The answer isn't a one party system, a two party system, or a many party system. The answer is a zero party system where each candidate has to fight individually.
"Unlike rural US, where American racist will simply kill or main you."
Who spreads this nonsense? There aren't people being killed or maimed in the US for racist nonsense.
There are certain political factions that will take anything they can spin into being related to racist or that involved a racist as a hate crime to drum up stats, They also count things like a school child carving a racist symbol into a locker/desk/the snow as hate crimes.
If you check the statistics almost every instance of actual racially motivated death comes back to gang activity, usually ex-cons. Prisons in the US are highly racially segregated, there are racially derived gangs and surviving in prison basically means joining one. You'll come out a monster because that's what prisons do with people of every other collar trying to shank and rape you on the daily. So if you are a white guy that means you inevitably walk out racist with a swastika tattoo. That ex-con robs a liquor store and shoots someone, tada they call it a hate crime because of the tattoo.
"You think a competing hedge fund wouldn't exploit this for all its worth?"
Of course they did, but their goal isn't to bankrupt each other, they exploit it to their own profit not piss their funds away against the other hedge fund. Also the top players are so interdependent and incestuous they are basically all one team. The 60% who lose aren't the banks and hedge funds, they are the suckers trying to play the market honestly.
"So they subsidised the price of heaps of shares to new investors at discount prices, to ease losses on short positions?"
Seriously? This isn't a conspiracy theory or even a secret. It is public knowledge.
They kick started downward cycles alongside bogus analysis. They made profits on each wave as the natural market tried to push the price up in response to overwhelming positive news and they'd smack it down. Which is a net zero because the price is offset by a reduction in the negative balance on their shorts. When the price went down rather than up on fantastic news it would trigger a sell off by other people, and these losses are where the gains come from. Put the cherry on top with some paid friendly analysis saying AMD is overpriced. This went on over and over again throughout the entire AMD climb and kept the yo-yo in play for quite awhile between $10-16 and before that around $5.
"How does one "depress the price" without losing money?"
By selling more in options than the cost of depressing the price?
By selling options and holding enough coin in reserve to tank the market?
As long as there are people with amounts of both coin and currency that the rest of us can't even truely fathom there are ways. A pool of hedge funds kept the entire AMD stock price depressed for months because they had a boatload of shorts at ridiculously low prices, but even having billions in shorts still left them plenty of money and connections to stock news orgs to game the price over the actions of millions of legitimate investors.
Presumably there will always be healthy cells and therefore always some amount of bluing. If possible would you have wanted to leave the water clear for healthy cells and turn blue for malignant ones?
I pay taxes, I ask for broadband to be an open access privately held utility with absolute net neutrality without exception. I'm prepared to do anything including organized and sanely administered armed resistance to get it. I get stuck with what you assholes are willing to pay, ask, and fight for.
That's why everything goes further and further down shit lane.
MS said 168.2m not 16.2m. And if broadband is available but 5-10x the cost of the same rate in other areas where usage is higher, it isn't really available in any meaningful way.
This isn't a troll.. well it might have started as one the headline is trollish but there is a legitimate point in there. As it stood we had a policy that declared the absence of net neutrality to be net neutrality. This is no different than the law that was supposed to reign in the already illegal warrantless activity of the NSA that instead gave it legitimacy.
He is hardly the first or the only one but the later Obama years were particularly egregious in this kind of behavior where the public would be upset about something and he'd support legislation with a title and spin as if it resolved the issue when the actual content reinforced and legitimized the thing people didn't want.
The "net neutrality" the FCC had before basically legalized anything the ISPs wanted to do, no matter how not neutral it was, as long as they buried in somewhere in fine print. That isn't net neutrality. Not that Ajit Pai has any interest in actual net neutrality, but what we had wasn't net neutrality just a smokescreen that legalized the opposite.
Remember just a couple years ago when all the actual women liked the word feminism and anyone who supported it but quickly distanced themselves from this or that wave feminism with all the extreme crazy men hating stuff?
I'm pretty sure those days are gone, now I don't meet any of those women anymore.
It doesn't sound like there actually is a problem. The big mistake I see here is ever choosing to hear anything about tumbler and porn, if they hadn't done that they could maintain tumbler as a legitimate site and not a porn site. As it is all those ladies will go somewhere else they can pretend they aren't looking at porn.
And among those who followed someone who pushed adult content to their feed, they make the bold assumption that there would be an issue. Were they looking for a pair of fantastic breasts? No, they are too classy for that but if the perfect pair happens to flit across their feed I doubt they are upset about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"saving thousands of American lives with access to healthcare"
You seem to be conflating insurance with healthcare. The only way this is helping is to allow people to get through the usual "do you have insurance" screen doctors use to determine whether people are likely to be able to pay the bill. Afterward they still get a bill and that bill is anywhere from 2-10x higher than before the "affordable care act".
Before the affordable care act my employer provided free insurance to everyone on the payroll. There was a $1500 deductible and afterward most things were covered 100% while a few categories were 90%. $5 prescriptions which started immediately not after deductible. Since the affordable care act that is a $6500 deductible before ANYTHING is covered including prescriptions, afterward 80% covered, and it costs me about $1200/month.
I had to go to the ER once and get stitches in the days without coverage. The bill was $200 and I was outraged there was ONE bill, from the hospital. My little brother went in with chronic stomach issues that meant he hadn't eaten in two weeks, they performed no tests, told him it was a thing they were starting to see and had no treatment. Subsequently, he was sent over $15,000 in bills from various parties, the hospital charges you, the doctor double charges you, etc.
If you actually think the affordable care act is a good thing you've lost your damn mind. We could have public healthcare, we could have private healthcare, but this half assed measured is definitely much worse than a serious effort at either system.
Okay, lets look at that.
"Democrats support this, and enacted Net Neutrality in the first place."
We have never had net neutrality, we had a set of measures which CLAIMED to be net neutrality and permitted anything but. Providers could prioritize traffic, shape it, and black ports, in some cases without disclosure, with disclosure buried in legalese somewhere they could do anything they wanted.
But lets see, did they do this anywhere else? How about nsa warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance?
Again the D's put through a bill to "fix" this problem, it actually legalized nsa activities but it had a catchy title suggesting it stopped them.
Just like Hillary admitted during the debates. The D's love to take a popular view in public while having different motivations "to get things done" in private. Their hero is Lincoln who used the issue of slavery to consolidate more federal power which meant personal power for himself than any president in history.
Don't confuse SAYING you care about things with actually caring about them especially with regards to a politician.
The truth, the truth is apparently flamebait now.
"Except that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of Net Neutrality, while republicans are 99% opposed."
No, the Democrats SAY they support net neutrality which is a different thing altogether. Remember the rules the FCC overturned were called "net neutrality" but didn't actually block the abuses we are all concerned about. Providers could essentially do whatever they wanted with a bit of fine print "disclosing" it somewhere.
This. You actually have to sign a deal agreeing there will be no lawsuit, public commentary, or unemployment claim.
Verizon lays off so many people there unemployment rates would have to be insane by point without these agreements. Also, they aren't giving everyone sixty weeks. It might have changed but a couple years ago there is a formula and it requires several years to qualify.
Most importantly, when they do these things it isn't voluntary. Your choice is to be gone with the agreement or be gone without the agreement. They are canning you either way.
"A low rate does not mean zero, especially when it comes to human lives."
A low rate can be effectively zero. If it were zero we'd have no concept of death. People day, every day, thousands and thousands of people die from all sorts of things.
"So by your numbers 133 people are injured by a hate crime a year."
Yes, while I don't have the statistics to back it up based on my conversations with ER nurses I'd put that number to be dramatically lower than the number of people who are injured due to shoving a light bulb up their rectum each year. 2.8 million people were hospitalized due to injuries in 2015. 14,800 died from opioid overdose. 325,000 children were injured from sports and recreational related activities. In other words, so low relative to almost any other cause as to be effectively zero. There are so few that there isn't enough work across the entire country of 325m+ people to dedicate 1 doctor and have him work full time. The cost of the comments from the news correspondents trying to create the impression this is a serious issue in a single day would pay that doctor for the medical treatment of everyone it happens to for the next 5-10 years.
"Your original statement of there not being people killed or maimed in the US by racists is false."
That is not a COMPLETE statement I've made. You've cherry picked a headliner statement and ignored the text below it where I myself indicate deaths. I also did not say "by a racist" I said FOR racist nonsense. Most of the people who are killed by racists are prison gang members killing other prison gang members... most frequently, they are killing people of the same race!
High profile anecdotes mean nothing. There are over 325 million people in the US and no shortage of murders any given day, hour or even minute rare stops being rare with those kind of numbers.
But there are not known hate crime related deaths, even though they automatically count it as one if someone racist was involved, every minute or hour because they are rare. Again, since 2015, you are three times more like likely to be killed by lightning strike.
This is just a political drum that gets beaten hard, loud, and often to drive fear, uncertainly, and doubt.
"But they were acknowledged as crimes and big deals, they got attention,"
Yup
" things changed."
*Scratches head* When? Probably about the same time as net neutrality issues, copyright cartel abuses, and nsa domestic wiretapping. As in, things were passed that claimed to be intended to fix the problems but actually gave legitimacy to the actions instead.
The answer isn't a one party system, a two party system, or a many party system. The answer is a zero party system where each candidate has to fight individually.
You seem to be mixing up economic and political philosophy.
Almost all of it is ex-cons and gang activity.
Even so you are three times more likely to die by lightning strike in the US than by racist.
You are three times more likely to be killed by lightning strike in the US than in a race motivated crime.
"Unlike rural US, where American racist will simply kill or main you."
Who spreads this nonsense? There aren't people being killed or maimed in the US for racist nonsense.
There are certain political factions that will take anything they can spin into being related to racist or that involved a racist as a hate crime to drum up stats, They also count things like a school child carving a racist symbol into a locker/desk/the snow as hate crimes.
If you check the statistics almost every instance of actual racially motivated death comes back to gang activity, usually ex-cons. Prisons in the US are highly racially segregated, there are racially derived gangs and surviving in prison basically means joining one. You'll come out a monster because that's what prisons do with people of every other collar trying to shank and rape you on the daily. So if you are a white guy that means you inevitably walk out racist with a swastika tattoo. That ex-con robs a liquor store and shoots someone, tada they call it a hate crime because of the tattoo.
Where the hell is that happening? It isn't here in the US.
"You think a competing hedge fund wouldn't exploit this for all its worth?"
Of course they did, but their goal isn't to bankrupt each other, they exploit it to their own profit not piss their funds away against the other hedge fund. Also the top players are so interdependent and incestuous they are basically all one team. The 60% who lose aren't the banks and hedge funds, they are the suckers trying to play the market honestly.
"So they subsidised the price of heaps of shares to new investors at discount prices, to ease losses on short positions?"
Seriously? This isn't a conspiracy theory or even a secret. It is public knowledge.
They kick started downward cycles alongside bogus analysis. They made profits on each wave as the natural market tried to push the price up in response to overwhelming positive news and they'd smack it down. Which is a net zero because the price is offset by a reduction in the negative balance on their shorts. When the price went down rather than up on fantastic news it would trigger a sell off by other people, and these losses are where the gains come from. Put the cherry on top with some paid friendly analysis saying AMD is overpriced. This went on over and over again throughout the entire AMD climb and kept the yo-yo in play for quite awhile between $10-16 and before that around $5.
"How does one "depress the price" without losing money?"
By selling more in options than the cost of depressing the price?
By selling options and holding enough coin in reserve to tank the market?
As long as there are people with amounts of both coin and currency that the rest of us can't even truely fathom there are ways. A pool of hedge funds kept the entire AMD stock price depressed for months because they had a boatload of shorts at ridiculously low prices, but even having billions in shorts still left them plenty of money and connections to stock news orgs to game the price over the actions of millions of legitimate investors.
Presumably there will always be healthy cells and therefore always some amount of bluing. If possible would you have wanted to leave the water clear for healthy cells and turn blue for malignant ones?
I pay taxes, I ask for broadband to be an open access privately held utility with absolute net neutrality without exception. I'm prepared to do anything including organized and sanely administered armed resistance to get it. I get stuck with what you assholes are willing to pay, ask, and fight for.
That's why everything goes further and further down shit lane.
"MS said only 16.2m"
MS said 168.2m not 16.2m. And if broadband is available but 5-10x the cost of the same rate in other areas where usage is higher, it isn't really available in any meaningful way.
Broadband should be a minimum of 25mb/s down 25mb/s up.
This isn't a troll.. well it might have started as one the headline is trollish but there is a legitimate point in there. As it stood we had a policy that declared the absence of net neutrality to be net neutrality. This is no different than the law that was supposed to reign in the already illegal warrantless activity of the NSA that instead gave it legitimacy.
He is hardly the first or the only one but the later Obama years were particularly egregious in this kind of behavior where the public would be upset about something and he'd support legislation with a title and spin as if it resolved the issue when the actual content reinforced and legitimized the thing people didn't want.
The "net neutrality" the FCC had before basically legalized anything the ISPs wanted to do, no matter how not neutral it was, as long as they buried in somewhere in fine print. That isn't net neutrality. Not that Ajit Pai has any interest in actual net neutrality, but what we had wasn't net neutrality just a smokescreen that legalized the opposite.
Remember just a couple years ago when all the actual women liked the word feminism and anyone who supported it but quickly distanced themselves from this or that wave feminism with all the extreme crazy men hating stuff?
I'm pretty sure those days are gone, now I don't meet any of those women anymore.
It doesn't sound like there actually is a problem. The big mistake I see here is ever choosing to hear anything about tumbler and porn, if they hadn't done that they could maintain tumbler as a legitimate site and not a porn site. As it is all those ladies will go somewhere else they can pretend they aren't looking at porn.
But what if every time you look at it assess that you jerk off again? THEN is it porn or a masterpiece?
And among those who followed someone who pushed adult content to their feed, they make the bold assumption that there would be an issue. Were they looking for a pair of fantastic breasts? No, they are too classy for that but if the perfect pair happens to flit across their feed I doubt they are upset about it.