Giuliani has been hired to endorse and push laws that further Trump's administration's ability to invade the privacy of those they dislike, and to prosecute those who dare to use technology or the internet to speak out against them.
Require Muslim citizens to register their devices before being allowed to sign up for broadband? Sounds like cybersecurity to me! Emailing someone an article disparaging Trump? Sounds like CYBERTERRORISM right Rudy?
I thought one of the arguments for being armed was to prevent being oppressed by the government. But you just said, essentially, the military would side with you.
So why do you need guns to protect yourselves from the government when the white Christian military will take your side?
I honestly don't even know where to begin. If you think that drug and therapy development is free, you know so damn little about complex diseases and their treatment, you're beyond help.
Some of the breakthroughs we're making now in oncology...so you have ANY idea how much failure came first by tons of people who genuinely want to cure these diseases? How many thousands of hours goes into the research necessary to attempt this stuff? Lest you think I'm just into hyperbole, look at CAR-T immunotherapy. There is simply no way that this kind of research and development and testing could be done without money to back it, no matter how altruistic the scientist or doctor.
There are companies right now footing the whole bill for $100k+ treatment courses including hospital stays for a handful of patients in hopes that someday we can treat more than 5 people at a time with this stuff. And yeah, the companies are hoping they'll make a profit. And I'm hoping that we can save a few more of our lymphoma patients. Win-win.
Screw you and your "citation needed" as if this kind of work can or even should happen for free in some guy's garage. You go get a PhD in immunology and chemistry and everything else and then donate your life to research while collecting no salary and using donated lab equipment. Have fun.
There are actual budget studies that look at this. Yes you pay taxes. No you do not pay as much in taxes as you receive in assistance. This is routinely shown county by county across a broad range of states.
Rural America is a net consumer of tax dollars. Cities are net donors.
For instance, out here in Washington we have a classic set up. Seattle and "the West" vs "the East". The "reviled urbanite scum" are throwing tax dollars hand over fist at rural citizens of Eastern Washington.
"In the 2007 fiscal year, King County contributed just over $6 billion to the state's tax coffers, according to the state. That year it received $3.5 billion from the general fund, for an expenses to revenue ratio of 0.59. The five counties which fared the worst in terms of getting tax money back compared to monies put in were: San Juan (0.41), King, Skagit (0.75), Jefferson (0.82) and Island (0.81).
The five counties getting the biggest bang out of their tax bucks were Whitman County, which paid $52.3 million in state taxes in 2007 but got $252 million back, for a ratio of 4.82. Whitman, in the southeastern part of the state, is home to Washington State University. Next is Thurston County, home to the state capital, with an expenses to revenue ratio of 3.17, then Lincoln County (2.54), Ferry (2.40) and Garfield (2.25). Lincoln, Ferry and Garfield are all small counties in Eastern Washington.
No county in Eastern Washington pays more in state general fund taxes than it receives back in expenditures. In the more populous western part of the state, seven counties contribute more than they get in return (Island, Jefferson, King San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish and Whatcom)."
As someone who collects a salary treating patients, I'm not saying that there's no place for profit. But as someone who spends my time arguing with insurance companies when they don't want to pay for proven treatments that are necessary, I feel as if they're drifted too far on the profit spectrum.
I do not, though, think that anyone trying to make a buck is evil. As you point out, you need to fund advances in medicine, and those aren't free. The number of failed drugs and trials that have floated through here is staggering.
And yet I can't even begin to count the number of patients I have that now have insurance and get care instead of having to apply for charity care or Medicaid.
Would single-payer have been better? Yeah, maybe because frankly I hate insurance companies are horrible since they focus on profit rather than helping patients. But the government wasn't going to allow single payer. Probably not Democrats and certainly not Republicans.
So you certainly seem to have your own anecdotal opinions that the ACA didn't help anyone. I have my own anecdotal opinions that it did. Sure, I'm of the belief that my direct experience providing care for patients with complex medical conditions gives me some perspective...but I don't think we have any meaningful way of comparing data sets.
Sorry, healthcare in America is now a political issue. And the Gods-honest truth is that those who need it most don't seem to realize that the GOP has somehow convinced them that it's a bad idea.
What's that? There are compelling reasons to have government support of rural healthcare to improve access for those who cannot otherwise have access to preventative and interventional medical care? Leave it to the states and local governments to find a way to make a hospital or clinic profitable that serves a population of hundreds or a few thousand?
Nah...just have people drive hundreds of miles, I'm sure that will work out.
I was all prepped to dismiss this as hipster BS, but I did think the points about artist budgets was worth thinking over.
The cost of producing digital music is low, but the profit from selling a digital track is low too if selling through the main distributors. I can understand that if you're playing at venues or on the road, that selling digital tracks is a pretty crummy way to make a spare buck. So sure, if you can have cassettes ready to go, and folks are willing to buy them and can play them...maybe I can see a niche.
That said, a blank cassette costs $1-2 or so from my quick Google. A blank CD costs $0.30 or less. So I'm not sure why one "old" physical medium would be preferable over a cheaper one except for hipster cred. The article only mentions tapes vs vinyl. No mention of the lowly CD.
I don't really see a strong reason to let passengers opt out. By stepping foot in the car, you know, by definition, that Uber is receiving GPS data from the route. It's how they bill you. What they do with that data is up to their EUTOS which I imagine is pretty broad.
You're the passenger in their contractor's (their definition...open for argument) car...might as well tell the FAA that they need your permission to track the route of the plane while you're on it.
Wow. Sarcasm totally lost on you apparently. Deep breath there buddy.
Just pointing out that apparently nothing, even the limited supply of fossil fuels, is unchallengable if your head is far enough up your science-denying ass.
We should just invest in renewables anyway?!? Oh wait, can I pretend to be an idiot?
"There's controversy about whether oil is really non-renewable. Some very smart people are challenging this hypothesis! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+is+re..."/end sarcasm
Do I have figures...no. Do I have anecdotes? Sure. Yes I've been bumped. Yes I know people who have been bumped. More people would be bumped except that there is one thing you're correct on...and that is that airlines often essentially bribe themselves out of a corner. "Who is willing to give up their seat for $250? No? How about $350, a free dinner, and a hotel? No? $400, dinner, hotel, and an upgrade to business class on the next flight? SOLD!"
See? Look! No one got bumped, they just "accepted an offer!" Any guesses on if the airline was just looking to pay someone money and really had enough seats for everyone if no one took the offer?
We had to run this stats problem years ago. It's a basic binomial distribution. There is a certain probability that someone will no show. You run that probability against the number of seats you oversell, expand it out over however many thousand flights you have daily/yearly/etc and look at the cost of all the "failures" vs the profit from the oversell, and you find the sweet spot.
Of course I act differently when no one is watching. The difference is that my job isn't to be the people's actual representation in government. If I request that no one watch what I'm doing so that I can do it without fear of their judgement, that's called malpractice.
No one is judging, in this case, Reps for acting differently at home when we can't watch them. We are judging them for asking that they be able to represent us without us knowing how they're doing so. There are already laws in place to deal with classified information, even Ryan isn't suggesting that this live broadcast ban is to protect national secrets. My own humble opinion is that it's exactly what it looks like, an attempt to be able to act one way and then tell the American people that no, it didn't really happen that way, and you have to take my word for it since we told C-SPAN they couldn't record it and banned other reps from doing it either.
Sometimes, you should not wish for everything to be broadcast, recorded, and open for all to see. You may find that some things get done faster, and better, when they are not being aired for all to hear. I could argue that congressional matters, being broadcast for all to see, has resulted in congressmen playing to the cameras, holding hearings that are often public theater, taking extreme positions for publicity, voting nonsensically and against better judgement so that their constituents see them doing so. A lot more work could be done behind closed doors, where representatives don't feel the need to be so extreme for the cameras, and so shallow on real issues.
If our elected officials are too cowardly or unethical such that they act one way when they are being watched vs when they are not watched, the solution is not to let them do all their work without supervision. If their excuse for acting nonsensically and against their better judgement is that they have no choice because their constituents are watching them, they have too little moral and intellectual integrity to do the job they are paid for. Furthermore, given that their record is supposedly public property, they again should have an expectation that what they say will, in fact, be seen and heard by their constituents.
I fail to see how closed doors would improve their behavior when we know ultimately who votes which way on every issue and they are all still, in theory, accountable at the ballot box.
Since we have C-SPAN, we've already established a tradition that the people have a right to see what their elected officials are doing. Let's ponder that...our...elected...political...representatives. Paul Ryan is proposing that broadcasting their activities in their place of work is unethical unless they explicitly are OK with being watched at that time via C-SPAN. He is asking that we not be allowed to observe and evaluate their activities; activities that we are paying for.
Anyone who might suggest that this is in the interest of government secrecy should be dismissed out of hand since we already have laws protecting classified information which could be amply used against anyone who broadcast a sensitive or classified debate.
Please see definition of "Sarcasm" if you had difficulty with the original comment about Job Creators. Hence the bit about 100% not being beneficial to anyone else besides displaying your own wealth.
I'm confident in my guess that you could far better spend that money to make jobs than however that business is structured. It's a luxury item and I really doubt, just like the sales people selling Gucci bags, that the employees of that company are the significant recipients of the money being spent in the stores.
I mean, sure, it's a transfer of wealth from the very top to someone else, and that's better than nothing. But when someone buys a $150k iPhone, let's not pretend that it's their way of "giving back to the little guy."
For when you're really rich and want to make absolutely 100% sure that everyone knows you'd rather spend your money on displays of wealth than anything remotely beneficial to anyone else.
(p.s. Remember, when we help the wealthy make more money, they become JOB CREATORS!)
You do have a point that Google Authenticator can be used by multiple sources (and I do have a few different sites running off my GA)
I still prefer to keep a USB key on my keychain rather than making sure my phone hasn't run out of batteries at all times. But I will concede that's my personal preference. I lose my phone and it's a pain in the tail to restore Google Authenticator...I know it's not impossible and I know there are options for that. Again, my personal preference it to keep a spare USB key not on my person in case I lose my keys.
If you still don't realize that secure 2FA is better than a password alone, I don't think a published article about the topic is going to change your mind. Unfortunately.
Of course portable hardware based 2FA is more secure than nearly any alternative.
USB 2FA can work on a variety of applications and sites. Gmail authenticator works with Gmail. That's great for Gmail. Not so great for comprehensive security.
For example, the article mentions Yahoo. Gmail's authenticator doesn't do much for Yahoo, Amazon, etc. But implementing universal 2FA is a relatively hurdle without requiring 20 apps for 20 different sites.
The criticism is over the hype. It's totally life saving but we need another year to test that it really is life saving. So which is it, well understood enough to actually be life saving or not well understood enough and requiring more testing?
Both. It can be clearly life saving with regards to the disease it is meant to treat while at the same time not being studied enough to be given the stamp of approval. In pharmacology we talk about a Perfect Drug which would only do what you want, when you want it, and without any side effects. Perfect drugs pretty much don't exist...hence side effects. That doesn't mean they don't do the thing they're meant to do (e.g. Save Life) but it means they also do other things (e.g. Cause your eyes to change color). Just because you know that it does Good Thing reliably doesn't say anything about whether it will also cause Bad Thing.
Analogy: New car feature allows cars to stop in any conditions 100% of the time before rear ending car in front of them. Clearly this is life saving as no one ever gets into a rear end accident. Understood and clear. Unfortunately after a year of use it becomes clear that the mechanism for sudden stop damages the drive train in all cars beyond repair. Doesn't change that it saves lives. But probably not ready for mass market with that particular long term side effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Your clear reasoning and logic cuts me to the bone. In the face of your biting rhetoric my resolve and courage crumble to dust.
Giuliani has been hired to endorse and push laws that further Trump's administration's ability to invade the privacy of those they dislike, and to prosecute those who dare to use technology or the internet to speak out against them.
Require Muslim citizens to register their devices before being allowed to sign up for broadband? Sounds like cybersecurity to me! Emailing someone an article disparaging Trump? Sounds like CYBERTERRORISM right Rudy?
I thought one of the arguments for being armed was to prevent being oppressed by the government. But you just said, essentially, the military would side with you.
So why do you need guns to protect yourselves from the government when the white Christian military will take your side?
I honestly don't even know where to begin. If you think that drug and therapy development is free, you know so damn little about complex diseases and their treatment, you're beyond help.
Some of the breakthroughs we're making now in oncology...so you have ANY idea how much failure came first by tons of people who genuinely want to cure these diseases? How many thousands of hours goes into the research necessary to attempt this stuff? Lest you think I'm just into hyperbole, look at CAR-T immunotherapy. There is simply no way that this kind of research and development and testing could be done without money to back it, no matter how altruistic the scientist or doctor.
There are companies right now footing the whole bill for $100k+ treatment courses including hospital stays for a handful of patients in hopes that someday we can treat more than 5 people at a time with this stuff. And yeah, the companies are hoping they'll make a profit. And I'm hoping that we can save a few more of our lymphoma patients. Win-win.
Screw you and your "citation needed" as if this kind of work can or even should happen for free in some guy's garage. You go get a PhD in immunology and chemistry and everything else and then donate your life to research while collecting no salary and using donated lab equipment. Have fun.
There are actual budget studies that look at this. Yes you pay taxes. No you do not pay as much in taxes as you receive in assistance. This is routinely shown county by county across a broad range of states.
Rural America is a net consumer of tax dollars. Cities are net donors.
For instance, out here in Washington we have a classic set up. Seattle and "the West" vs "the East". The "reviled urbanite scum" are throwing tax dollars hand over fist at rural citizens of Eastern Washington.
"In the 2007 fiscal year, King County contributed just over $6 billion to the state's tax coffers, according to the state. That year it received $3.5 billion from the general fund, for an expenses to revenue ratio of 0.59. The five counties which fared the worst in terms of getting tax money back compared to monies put in were: San Juan (0.41), King, Skagit (0.75), Jefferson (0.82) and Island (0.81).
The five counties getting the biggest bang out of their tax bucks were Whitman County, which paid $52.3 million in state taxes in 2007 but got $252 million back, for a ratio of 4.82. Whitman, in the southeastern part of the state, is home to Washington State University. Next is Thurston County, home to the state capital, with an expenses to revenue ratio of 3.17, then Lincoln County (2.54), Ferry (2.40) and Garfield (2.25). Lincoln, Ferry and Garfield are all small counties in Eastern Washington.
No county in Eastern Washington pays more in state general fund taxes than it receives back in expenditures. In the more populous western part of the state, seven counties contribute more than they get in return (Island, Jefferson, King San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish and Whatcom)."
As someone who collects a salary treating patients, I'm not saying that there's no place for profit. But as someone who spends my time arguing with insurance companies when they don't want to pay for proven treatments that are necessary, I feel as if they're drifted too far on the profit spectrum.
I do not, though, think that anyone trying to make a buck is evil. As you point out, you need to fund advances in medicine, and those aren't free. The number of failed drugs and trials that have floated through here is staggering.
And yet I can't even begin to count the number of patients I have that now have insurance and get care instead of having to apply for charity care or Medicaid.
Would single-payer have been better? Yeah, maybe because frankly I hate insurance companies are horrible since they focus on profit rather than helping patients. But the government wasn't going to allow single payer. Probably not Democrats and certainly not Republicans.
So you certainly seem to have your own anecdotal opinions that the ACA didn't help anyone. I have my own anecdotal opinions that it did. Sure, I'm of the belief that my direct experience providing care for patients with complex medical conditions gives me some perspective...but I don't think we have any meaningful way of comparing data sets.
Sorry, healthcare in America is now a political issue. And the Gods-honest truth is that those who need it most don't seem to realize that the GOP has somehow convinced them that it's a bad idea.
What's that? There are compelling reasons to have government support of rural healthcare to improve access for those who cannot otherwise have access to preventative and interventional medical care? Leave it to the states and local governments to find a way to make a hospital or clinic profitable that serves a population of hundreds or a few thousand?
Nah...just have people drive hundreds of miles, I'm sure that will work out.
I was all prepped to dismiss this as hipster BS, but I did think the points about artist budgets was worth thinking over.
The cost of producing digital music is low, but the profit from selling a digital track is low too if selling through the main distributors. I can understand that if you're playing at venues or on the road, that selling digital tracks is a pretty crummy way to make a spare buck. So sure, if you can have cassettes ready to go, and folks are willing to buy them and can play them...maybe I can see a niche.
That said, a blank cassette costs $1-2 or so from my quick Google. A blank CD costs $0.30 or less. So I'm not sure why one "old" physical medium would be preferable over a cheaper one except for hipster cred. The article only mentions tapes vs vinyl. No mention of the lowly CD.
I don't really see a strong reason to let passengers opt out. By stepping foot in the car, you know, by definition, that Uber is receiving GPS data from the route. It's how they bill you. What they do with that data is up to their EUTOS which I imagine is pretty broad.
You're the passenger in their contractor's (their definition...open for argument) car...might as well tell the FAA that they need your permission to track the route of the plane while you're on it.
Wow. Sarcasm totally lost on you apparently. Deep breath there buddy.
Just pointing out that apparently nothing, even the limited supply of fossil fuels, is unchallengable if your head is far enough up your science-denying ass.
We should just invest in renewables anyway?!? Oh wait, can I pretend to be an idiot?
"There's controversy about whether oil is really non-renewable. Some very smart people are challenging this hypothesis! http://lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+is+re..." /end sarcasm
Sigh.
Do I have figures...no. Do I have anecdotes? Sure. Yes I've been bumped. Yes I know people who have been bumped. More people would be bumped except that there is one thing you're correct on...and that is that airlines often essentially bribe themselves out of a corner. "Who is willing to give up their seat for $250? No? How about $350, a free dinner, and a hotel? No? $400, dinner, hotel, and an upgrade to business class on the next flight? SOLD!"
See? Look! No one got bumped, they just "accepted an offer!" Any guesses on if the airline was just looking to pay someone money and really had enough seats for everyone if no one took the offer?
We had to run this stats problem years ago. It's a basic binomial distribution. There is a certain probability that someone will no show. You run that probability against the number of seats you oversell, expand it out over however many thousand flights you have daily/yearly/etc and look at the cost of all the "failures" vs the profit from the oversell, and you find the sweet spot.
Of course I act differently when no one is watching. The difference is that my job isn't to be the people's actual representation in government. If I request that no one watch what I'm doing so that I can do it without fear of their judgement, that's called malpractice.
No one is judging, in this case, Reps for acting differently at home when we can't watch them. We are judging them for asking that they be able to represent us without us knowing how they're doing so. There are already laws in place to deal with classified information, even Ryan isn't suggesting that this live broadcast ban is to protect national secrets. My own humble opinion is that it's exactly what it looks like, an attempt to be able to act one way and then tell the American people that no, it didn't really happen that way, and you have to take my word for it since we told C-SPAN they couldn't record it and banned other reps from doing it either.
Sometimes, you should not wish for everything to be broadcast, recorded, and open for all to see. You may find that some things get done faster, and better, when they are not being aired for all to hear. I could argue that congressional matters, being broadcast for all to see, has resulted in congressmen playing to the cameras, holding hearings that are often public theater, taking extreme positions for publicity, voting nonsensically and against better judgement so that their constituents see them doing so. A lot more work could be done behind closed doors, where representatives don't feel the need to be so extreme for the cameras, and so shallow on real issues.
If our elected officials are too cowardly or unethical such that they act one way when they are being watched vs when they are not watched, the solution is not to let them do all their work without supervision. If their excuse for acting nonsensically and against their better judgement is that they have no choice because their constituents are watching them, they have too little moral and intellectual integrity to do the job they are paid for. Furthermore, given that their record is supposedly public property, they again should have an expectation that what they say will, in fact, be seen and heard by their constituents.
I fail to see how closed doors would improve their behavior when we know ultimately who votes which way on every issue and they are all still, in theory, accountable at the ballot box.
Since we have C-SPAN, we've already established a tradition that the people have a right to see what their elected officials are doing. Let's ponder that...our...elected...political...representatives. Paul Ryan is proposing that broadcasting their activities in their place of work is unethical unless they explicitly are OK with being watched at that time via C-SPAN. He is asking that we not be allowed to observe and evaluate their activities; activities that we are paying for.
Anyone who might suggest that this is in the interest of government secrecy should be dismissed out of hand since we already have laws protecting classified information which could be amply used against anyone who broadcast a sensitive or classified debate.
Please see definition of "Sarcasm" if you had difficulty with the original comment about Job Creators. Hence the bit about 100% not being beneficial to anyone else besides displaying your own wealth.
I'm confident in my guess that you could far better spend that money to make jobs than however that business is structured. It's a luxury item and I really doubt, just like the sales people selling Gucci bags, that the employees of that company are the significant recipients of the money being spent in the stores.
I mean, sure, it's a transfer of wealth from the very top to someone else, and that's better than nothing. But when someone buys a $150k iPhone, let's not pretend that it's their way of "giving back to the little guy."
For when you're really rich and want to make absolutely 100% sure that everyone knows you'd rather spend your money on displays of wealth than anything remotely beneficial to anyone else.
(p.s. Remember, when we help the wealthy make more money, they become JOB CREATORS!)
"Mr Dalio, I'm sorry...but it seems like PriOS has determined that the most effective cost savings measure is to lay you off as well..."
You do have a point that Google Authenticator can be used by multiple sources (and I do have a few different sites running off my GA)
I still prefer to keep a USB key on my keychain rather than making sure my phone hasn't run out of batteries at all times. But I will concede that's my personal preference. I lose my phone and it's a pain in the tail to restore Google Authenticator...I know it's not impossible and I know there are options for that. Again, my personal preference it to keep a spare USB key not on my person in case I lose my keys.
Water is wet and rocks are hard.
If you still don't realize that secure 2FA is better than a password alone, I don't think a published article about the topic is going to change your mind. Unfortunately.
Of course portable hardware based 2FA is more secure than nearly any alternative.
USB 2FA can work on a variety of applications and sites. Gmail authenticator works with Gmail. That's great for Gmail. Not so great for comprehensive security.
For example, the article mentions Yahoo. Gmail's authenticator doesn't do much for Yahoo, Amazon, etc. But implementing universal 2FA is a relatively hurdle without requiring 20 apps for 20 different sites.
The criticism is over the hype. It's totally life saving but we need another year to test that it really is life saving. So which is it, well understood enough to actually be life saving or not well understood enough and requiring more testing?
Both. It can be clearly life saving with regards to the disease it is meant to treat while at the same time not being studied enough to be given the stamp of approval. In pharmacology we talk about a Perfect Drug which would only do what you want, when you want it, and without any side effects. Perfect drugs pretty much don't exist...hence side effects. That doesn't mean they don't do the thing they're meant to do (e.g. Save Life) but it means they also do other things (e.g. Cause your eyes to change color). Just because you know that it does Good Thing reliably doesn't say anything about whether it will also cause Bad Thing.
Analogy:
New car feature allows cars to stop in any conditions 100% of the time before rear ending car in front of them. Clearly this is life saving as no one ever gets into a rear end accident. Understood and clear. Unfortunately after a year of use it becomes clear that the mechanism for sudden stop damages the drive train in all cars beyond repair. Doesn't change that it saves lives. But probably not ready for mass market with that particular long term side effect.