I'm not sure, but how abooot you send us all your doughnuts and back-bacon, eh? Instead of "let them eat cake," we'll let them eat doughnuts.
*wonk wonk*
Anyway, my guess is they'll extend unemployment again and again and again. The little dutch boy keeps puttin' his finger in the dike holes, you know? The segmented working class 30% figures are one of the quiet behind-the-scenes reasons for all the political consternation here. It's not super easy to fix, because a lot of it is tied up in the construction business, and banks aren't stupid. One of the first thing they did at the sign of the bubble is withdrew from loaning money to builders. It doesn't matter what your credit is, it doesn't matter if they even think you can be profitable on your new build--they don't want any increase in inventories at all, so no loans. Completely makes sense. Think about it.
I agree with everything you said there. In some ways, "don't care about their lack of reward" translates to a certain degree of labour scarcity removal also.
Yes, it does, when you base your practice off of freeloading medical developments from capitalist countries.
Eat that, ha ha
Joking side, the healthcare status over on this side of the border is going to erupt pretty soon. So is the unemployment situation, if things don't improve. What the current unemployment numbers don't show is that the roll-up-the-sleeves working class has very high (as high as 30%) numbers right now. The last time it was that bad was great depression. Riots could happen within 18 mos.:-P
As everyone else is pointing out, that makes you a Communist.
Well, perhaps everyone else is right. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need. Yes, open source is one of the rare cases of communism actually working. Isn't it funny that we're so caught up in the use of the word as a pejorative, that were unable to consider the actual facts?
You and your management have an impedance mismatch between what you and they consider to be "better". Management, even TECHNICAL management, making these decisions has to decide on things like whether or not they can hire staff for the project, whether or not the future products you recommend are likely to have easy access technical support--in essence the forest of infrastructure is important to them in a way that it isn't to you. And you're probably wrong about their interest in "Linux". They aren't just interested in "Linux," they are interested in RHEL a great deal of time. Okay, if not at your company, most companies.
The point is, they aren't just interested in open source, but rather they are interested in specific open source projects that have proven themselves commercially, with the appropriate trust tail. Your perspective glosses that over with such thick glass, I wonder if you've thought about this at all.
Granted, I know very well what's it like to be a talented individual not intimidated by open source, able to get just about anything working, and not sweating having to actually crack the source when things aren't as I expect. You do know that people like you and I aren't the rule in Fortune 500 staffing, don't you?
Perhaps the next time you define PostgreSQL, etc as "better," you should go into it with an enterprise perspective, and attempt to convince on the basis of same. Your uppers are much more likely to listen then.
Thinking about this for a few moments more. You don't know me from adam, so of course you have no basis for an opinion. But what have we learned about you? You've revealed it: you wouldn't have had the guts to stand up to a girl in this particular way. Interesting, eh? Too bad. A particularly sad thing about our American society is that too many men are trained to take abuse from women laying down, giving them get out of jail free cards for bad behavior.
The point was that words can, and do, have consequences in the real world. Of course you are right, a mere curse is not something one can respond to, except with words back. The "right" to respond with force would depend on how much in your face cursing was going on. With an adult. By "right" I mean that the person who gets their ass kicked here would have no reasonable expectation of civil or criminal relief. This is in part due to the fact that repeated verbal aggression is "threatening" as you say, whether or not the threat is express.
Anyway, my point was that "toddlers" and even young adults not the age of majority enjoy legal protections that adults do not enjoy. In exchange for granting them such protections, it is not unreasonable to somewhat curtail their rights.
Hmmm. If a toddler calls me a fuckhead, can I kick its ass?:-P
The answer is "no of course, not, but the parents have a responsibility to see to the good behavior of their child".
I recall a party I was at once, 20 years ago, where a chick gave me some stupid lip, and I turned to her man and said that if she kept going HE was going to get his ass kicked. He shuttled her outta there right quick. Bet he wasn't expecting that, eh.:-P
Anyway, above romping around aside, are you SURE that a child, enrolled in a school, doesn't have a special relationship with the school in the same way that an employee has with their work place? Certainly you realize that if this were a PRIVATE school, there would be no question that the school could terminate the contract? Not "suspension," but expulsion. The fact that it is a PUBLIC school of course suggests that all the restraints on government apply. But what a complicated situation.
I'm not professing to have a "right" answer here. The situation appears to be, to me, a rather muddy one.
Overall, however, I'm with the other poster who decries the slowly eroding nature of our Constitutional government.
Perhaps the actual problem is PUBLIC school in the first place.
My ex was an ER physician. The ER problem is a real humdinger, and worse than most people imagine. Suppose you go to the ER, catch a lot of medical bills, but have no money. Suppose you do something silly, like ignore them, and fail to declare bankruptcy. Suppose 6.5 years later, you recover from all your money problems, and buy a house. Can you spell LIEN? The system we have is capricious.
The problem occurs again, in a different way, with hospitals located near low-income areas. Capriciousness again, this time possibly leading the hospital to close.
It's no good. The ER problem needs to be cleaned up. And it won't be by saying "if you show up at the ER without insurance, you don't get treatment". Institutionalized callousness won't be accepted by the American public. It just won't.
I'm not partisan (which is to say I don't side with the Repubs or Dems either one). I do favor some of the Repub positions, though: a little bit of interstate competition would be good (that's a CATO idea), and we could use some (careful) tort reform. Those will hardly solve everything, though.
I believe you. In another thread I said that the market has failed on the preexisting condition situation; however the solution isn't nationalization, but rather appropriate use of law and probably something along the lines of associations of small businesses that collectively act as a large scale employer, perhaps backed by law to be the same or some such.
By and large I'm with the CATO institute on most of this stuff. I do think that law has to intervene in markets once in when, but then, so does CATO for the most part, even if we don't agree on every point.
Well. Ultimately there is a cold calculus that occurs: the cost of the treatments to the population of insured exceeds the premiums collected. The same problem can just as well occur in any single payer system, and the solution is about the same: deny coverage.
No more than the white pages, for listing addresses. However, if someone picked 10 addresses out of the white pages, and posted "please rob these addresses" in print, I'd say, yes, the would be criminally liable.
Single out individuals, even when the information is public--uncool, unethical, immmoral, and wrong.
I'm interested in what you have to say. Sincerely.
For example, how is it that extremely aggressive denial of preexisting condition is merely a consequence of government intervention in the market? If that's true, I'd really like to know, and how it has happened.
No, they cannot deny claims, either. Not insofar as they would deny them to everyone under the policy. Read the other response. The other respondent is correct. They jack up the overall cost to the employer.
Would you feel the same way if the site were "Please Rape Me" and it singled out girls who stupidly mentioned they were home alone? You know, "this is a joke," "all in good fun," "it's funny, isn't it?" What would your wife or girlfriend think about that? Why not give her an ask and find out? Ask her what she would think about you if you were to personally sponsor such a web site.
A "joke" at a stranger's expense, in this format, is still harassment. It's a gross lack of empathy and decency. It's actionable, and should be actionable. It's a crime, and should be a crime. The point could be gotten across with fictional accounts, not real ones. The singling out of actual individuals is tasteless and insensitive under the best of interpretations.
Your gut instinct is that because they were stupid, they "deserve" to be treated inhumanely. That gut instinct is a poor one. Rethink it.
C//
Re:Unconstitutional and Surprised no Challenges
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 1
I think doctors have the same problem if the period of employment is at the same hospital for a long time. My ex wife is a physician, and we asked about incorporation, and he said that went away in the 80's. Probably the same act.
Um. On google images search for the term "lol preexisting condition". Review the picture. That pretty well summarizes the state of healthcare in this country to individual procurers of healthcare. When you are covered by a large company's health plan, there are not preexisting condition limits.
The only way this will ever fixed will be by fiat of law. The market has categorically failed.
I got modded funny, which was strange. Here you go, you can have my funny mod points.:-)
Seriously though, this wasn't that much of a vanity purchase. The CPU and GPU are modest. RAM these days is CHEAP. I did spend a good $250 on the SSD, but most of my storage is cheap SATA. It all mixes together quite well. That SSD makes my system feel sooooo snappy. It doesn't hurt that Windows takes less time to boot than the BIOS does to POST.
I really don't think it's the democratic elements of a government that would lead, in this particular case, to the thing you don't like. It's the representative aspects, who are kowtowing to the corporate influences, who will do so.
By and large, for ordinary user space apps and workloads you are certainly right. But even some home users do intense things, such as video encoding or 3 rendering that, because of high intensity I/O that can be associated with that, will certainly benefit from faster disk. Now, if one hasn't already upgraded to SSD, I'll say this: one is missing out on the best upgrade you can do for your daily experience of your computer, barring a really nice monitor.
If a PCI-e SSD at the same price as an equal capacity SATA drive provided literally 100 times the performance, would people ignore it because.. wait... it's a funny shape for a drive?
No, of course not. But it cannot happen, because you have to recoup your driver creation and maintenance costs, for plural operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure, but how abooot you send us all your doughnuts and back-bacon, eh? Instead of "let them eat cake," we'll let them eat doughnuts.
*wonk wonk*
Anyway, my guess is they'll extend unemployment again and again and again. The little dutch boy keeps puttin' his finger in the dike holes, you know? The segmented working class 30% figures are one of the quiet behind-the-scenes reasons for all the political consternation here. It's not super easy to fix, because a lot of it is tied up in the construction business, and banks aren't stupid. One of the first thing they did at the sign of the bubble is withdrew from loaning money to builders. It doesn't matter what your credit is, it doesn't matter if they even think you can be profitable on your new build--they don't want any increase in inventories at all, so no loans. Completely makes sense. Think about it.
C//
I agree with everything you said there. In some ways, "don't care about their lack of reward" translates to a certain degree of labour scarcity removal also.
C//
Well, since we're being wanky:
Yes, it does, when you base your practice off of freeloading medical developments from capitalist countries.
Eat that, ha ha
Joking side, the healthcare status over on this side of the border is going to erupt pretty soon. So is the unemployment situation, if things don't improve. What the current unemployment numbers don't show is that the roll-up-the-sleeves working class has very high (as high as 30%) numbers right now. The last time it was that bad was great depression. Riots could happen within 18 mos. :-P
As everyone else is pointing out, that makes you a Communist.
Well, perhaps everyone else is right. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need. Yes, open source is one of the rare cases of communism actually working. Isn't it funny that we're so caught up in the use of the word as a pejorative, that were unable to consider the actual facts?
C//
You and your management have an impedance mismatch between what you and they consider to be "better". Management, even TECHNICAL management, making these decisions has to decide on things like whether or not they can hire staff for the project, whether or not the future products you recommend are likely to have easy access technical support--in essence the forest of infrastructure is important to them in a way that it isn't to you. And you're probably wrong about their interest in "Linux". They aren't just interested in "Linux," they are interested in RHEL a great deal of time. Okay, if not at your company, most companies.
The point is, they aren't just interested in open source, but rather they are interested in specific open source projects that have proven themselves commercially, with the appropriate trust tail. Your perspective glosses that over with such thick glass, I wonder if you've thought about this at all.
Granted, I know very well what's it like to be a talented individual not intimidated by open source, able to get just about anything working, and not sweating having to actually crack the source when things aren't as I expect. You do know that people like you and I aren't the rule in Fortune 500 staffing, don't you?
Perhaps the next time you define PostgreSQL, etc as "better," you should go into it with an enterprise perspective, and attempt to convince on the basis of same. Your uppers are much more likely to listen then.
C//
Thinking about this for a few moments more. You don't know me from adam, so of course you have no basis for an opinion. But what have we learned about you? You've revealed it: you wouldn't have had the guts to stand up to a girl in this particular way. Interesting, eh? Too bad. A particularly sad thing about our American society is that too many men are trained to take abuse from women laying down, giving them get out of jail free cards for bad behavior.
No man, it actually happened. Even 20 years ago I understood the real skinny. Do you?
The point was that words can, and do, have consequences in the real world. Of course you are right, a mere curse is not something one can respond to, except with words back. The "right" to respond with force would depend on how much in your face cursing was going on. With an adult. By "right" I mean that the person who gets their ass kicked here would have no reasonable expectation of civil or criminal relief. This is in part due to the fact that repeated verbal aggression is "threatening" as you say, whether or not the threat is express.
Anyway, my point was that "toddlers" and even young adults not the age of majority enjoy legal protections that adults do not enjoy. In exchange for granting them such protections, it is not unreasonable to somewhat curtail their rights.
C//
Hmmm. If a toddler calls me a fuckhead, can I kick its ass? :-P
The answer is "no of course, not, but the parents have a responsibility to see to the good behavior of their child".
I recall a party I was at once, 20 years ago, where a chick gave me some stupid lip, and I turned to her man and said that if she kept going HE was going to get his ass kicked. He shuttled her outta there right quick. Bet he wasn't expecting that, eh. :-P
Anyway, above romping around aside, are you SURE that a child, enrolled in a school, doesn't have a special relationship with the school in the same way that an employee has with their work place? Certainly you realize that if this were a PRIVATE school, there would be no question that the school could terminate the contract? Not "suspension," but expulsion. The fact that it is a PUBLIC school of course suggests that all the restraints on government apply. But what a complicated situation.
I'm not professing to have a "right" answer here. The situation appears to be, to me, a rather muddy one.
Overall, however, I'm with the other poster who decries the slowly eroding nature of our Constitutional government.
Perhaps the actual problem is PUBLIC school in the first place.
C//
My ex was an ER physician. The ER problem is a real humdinger, and worse than most people imagine. Suppose you go to the ER, catch a lot of medical bills, but have no money. Suppose you do something silly, like ignore them, and fail to declare bankruptcy. Suppose 6.5 years later, you recover from all your money problems, and buy a house. Can you spell LIEN? The system we have is capricious.
The problem occurs again, in a different way, with hospitals located near low-income areas. Capriciousness again, this time possibly leading the hospital to close.
It's no good. The ER problem needs to be cleaned up. And it won't be by saying "if you show up at the ER without insurance, you don't get treatment". Institutionalized callousness won't be accepted by the American public. It just won't.
I'm not partisan (which is to say I don't side with the Repubs or Dems either one). I do favor some of the Repub positions, though: a little bit of interstate competition would be good (that's a CATO idea), and we could use some (careful) tort reform. Those will hardly solve everything, though.
C//
I believe you. In another thread I said that the market has failed on the preexisting condition situation; however the solution isn't nationalization, but rather appropriate use of law and probably something along the lines of associations of small businesses that collectively act as a large scale employer, perhaps backed by law to be the same or some such.
By and large I'm with the CATO institute on most of this stuff. I do think that law has to intervene in markets once in when, but then, so does CATO for the most part, even if we don't agree on every point.
C//
Well. Ultimately there is a cold calculus that occurs: the cost of the treatments to the population of insured exceeds the premiums collected. The same problem can just as well occur in any single payer system, and the solution is about the same: deny coverage.
C//
No more than the white pages, for listing addresses. However, if someone picked 10 addresses out of the white pages, and posted "please rob these addresses" in print, I'd say, yes, the would be criminally liable.
Single out individuals, even when the information is public--uncool, unethical, immmoral, and wrong.
C//
Well why did you post AC?
I'm interested in what you have to say. Sincerely.
For example, how is it that extremely aggressive denial of preexisting condition is merely a consequence of government intervention in the market? If that's true, I'd really like to know, and how it has happened.
C//
No, they cannot deny claims, either. Not insofar as they would deny them to everyone under the policy. Read the other response. The other respondent is correct. They jack up the overall cost to the employer.
C//
Would you feel the same way if the site were "Please Rape Me" and it singled out girls who stupidly mentioned they were home alone? You know, "this is a joke," "all in good fun," "it's funny, isn't it?" What would your wife or girlfriend think about that? Why not give her an ask and find out? Ask her what she would think about you if you were to personally sponsor such a web site.
A "joke" at a stranger's expense, in this format, is still harassment. It's a gross lack of empathy and decency. It's actionable, and should be actionable. It's a crime, and should be a crime. The point could be gotten across with fictional accounts, not real ones. The singling out of actual individuals is tasteless and insensitive under the best of interpretations.
Your gut instinct is that because they were stupid, they "deserve" to be treated inhumanely. That gut instinct is a poor one. Rethink it.
C//
I think doctors have the same problem if the period of employment is at the same hospital for a long time. My ex wife is a physician, and we asked about incorporation, and he said that went away in the 80's. Probably the same act.
C//
You are incorrect about this. You do not file or disclose preexisting conditions for employer sponsored health care.
I don't think you followed the OP, who was correct. You CANNOT be dropped from an employer-sponsored group.
C//
Um. On google images search for the term "lol preexisting condition". Review the picture. That pretty well summarizes the state of healthcare in this country to individual procurers of healthcare. When you are covered by a large company's health plan, there are not preexisting condition limits.
The only way this will ever fixed will be by fiat of law. The market has categorically failed.
C//
As the AC stated, they only take what you tell them to take. It's more than rather strange you don't know this.
C//
I got modded funny, which was strange. Here you go, you can have my funny mod points. :-)
Seriously though, this wasn't that much of a vanity purchase. The CPU and GPU are modest. RAM these days is CHEAP. I did spend a good $250 on the SSD, but most of my storage is cheap SATA. It all mixes together quite well. That SSD makes my system feel sooooo snappy. It doesn't hurt that Windows takes less time to boot than the BIOS does to POST.
C//
*shrug*
Windows 7, 64 bit here. 8GB RAM. Intel X25-M SSD. Seems like nothing I do can make my computer "sluggish".
C//
I really don't think it's the democratic elements of a government that would lead, in this particular case, to the thing you don't like. It's the representative aspects, who are kowtowing to the corporate influences, who will do so.
IMO,
C//
By and large, for ordinary user space apps and workloads you are certainly right. But even some home users do intense things, such as video encoding or 3 rendering that, because of high intensity I/O that can be associated with that, will certainly benefit from faster disk. Now, if one hasn't already upgraded to SSD, I'll say this: one is missing out on the best upgrade you can do for your daily experience of your computer, barring a really nice monitor.
C//
If a PCI-e SSD at the same price as an equal capacity SATA drive provided literally 100 times the performance, would people ignore it because.. wait... it's a funny shape for a drive?
No, of course not. But it cannot happen, because you have to recoup your driver creation and maintenance costs, for plural operating systems.
C//