Esta nueva aplicación me ayudó muchísimo! Por desgracia, todo lo que realmente sé hacer en español es hablar de gatos. Estoy atrapado en México y tengo que encontrar mi camino de regreso a los Estados Unidos! Qué haría el gato gruñón?
Better yet, place a banner at the top of each page found to be edited for pay. The banner can read "Company/Person X has been found to pay to edit this article to hide the truth from you. We have reverted those changes but here is a list of things that they don't want you to know: " I'd think that this behavior would end real quick when the dirt they're trying to hide becomes the highlight of the article.
Unless you have a camera pointed at the driver, there's no way these devices can be accurate. The most important part of being a good driver is paying attention
. Driving distracted is by far the greatest cause of accidents (80%). Person A could be driving 10 MPH over the speed limit completely aware of his surroundings and get smacked down as an "unsafe driver" by these devices while Person B gets a "safe driver discount" for driving all day long with cruise control on going the speed limit but completely oblivious to the world around them on a cell phone, eating, texting, etc. That aint right.
Yes because we all know that speeding always leads to accidents. Meanwhile the oblivious woman driving while talking on her cell phone while eating a hamburger with a bunch of screaming kids in the back is considered a safe-driver by these devices because she's got cruise control on and she's going exactly the speed limit.
You have a point in that the ISPs are not directly related to Hollywood. However, limiting the number of content providers (by making access to any but the big providers incredibly slow) reduces competition and makes it easier for content providers and producers to charge absurd rates. Competition is always bad for business..
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find all of the things in that sentence that the NSA violates regularly.
There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines. And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that.
Yes, that headline reads "New NSA revelations reveal activities that violate our constitutional right to privacy" Not a headline I'd want to be associated with.
At no point were the Dems who were pushing for this courting or expecting Republican votes, hence the procedural trickery they did in the Senate to pass it, but they did require the blue dogs and other center left Dems.
Here's an interesting quote from Republican Senator Grassley:
"No public option. No play-or-pay. No things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care. No interference with the doctor-patient relationship," says Grassley. "About the only place we haven't made progress along the lines of what Republicans are wanting on the bill is in tort reform."
Do I have rose colored glasses on or do you have your blinders on?
I'll give you copyright, it has gone overboard for sure. Patents work when applied to novel physical inventions. The problem mostly is when they're applied to iterative software "inventions". But they seem to work fine for physical industries that involve manufacturing. I agree on prohibition but I wouldn't classify it as an industry regulation (although you could stretch it, sure). I would have gone with "banking regulations" as your third instead.
Still, I can counter with three successful regulatory agencies: NHTSA - which regulates automobile safety pretty effectively FDA - which has done a good job regulating food safety OSHA - which has made our workplaces all safer to be in and protects us from being thrown out on the street if we are injured on the job
The government has plenty of flaws, too many to list. But to insist that it can't regulate effectively is just blind anti-government nonsense.
"Raise insurance costs on average" isn't accurate. It raises insurance costs among those who used to pay nothing at all or paid very little for what were basically scam coverage and provides better care for the increased cost to them and also pays a subsidy to those who were paying little because they couldn't afford it.
The average cost (that is including everyone in the country) will actually go down because the risk of needing healthcare will be spread across a wider pool of people, which is how insurance works.
This is not a response to you, because I won't dignify your name-calling with the satisfaction of having me take you seriously, Mr. Troll. This is a comment to anyone who might think you have a point (you don't).
The car is also available at your local dealership, by phone, or a good-old fashioned google search to get it direct from the manufacturer's website. Still, to most people it won't matter because their employers provide them with a car already.
There are two things that guarantee that the young and health people will sign up. First, anyone under 26 can stay on their parents' plans. Which means that their parents are paying for the "Employee + Family" plan rather than the "Employee + Spouse" plan. Secondly, the penalty for refusing to sign up starts off small but will rise to meet the cost of health insurance. This means that you really have two choices: pay money and get nothing or pay money and get health coverage.
Also, I'm not sure why you and GP call Obamacare a price control. It's not, at least not compared to say rent controlling in big cities. The closest thing to a price control in the law is that the insurance companies may not spend more than 20% of the premium income on administrative costs.
It's unrealistic to expect "no cost to you to comply" because the new minimum requirements provide better coverage than the ones that are being cancelled with the added benefit that the insurance company won't drop you the minute you need care because of some pre-existing condition you didn't know about. You are not paying more "just because Obamacare". If you cannot afford it, there are subsidies available to you to help cover the costs. The subsidy is available at my income level and I already have a comfortable amount of disposable income (my state is cheap to live in, though).
1) The government does have an online presence. I don't know where this website falls on the scale of complexity compared to its other websites but most government agencies do indeed have some sort of website. This failure seems to be more of an outlier than the norm.
2) I do expect the government to be better at regulating than giving out successful contracts for two reasons. First, the government lacks control over the contracted company and cannot directly force the company to be successful. Secondly, the government has a lot more experience regulating as it already regulates many industries.
The work on Healthcare.gov grew out of a contract for open-ended technology services first issued in 2007 with a place-holder value of $1,000. There were 31 bidders. An extension, awarded in September 2011 specifically to build Healthcare.gov, drew four bidders, the documents show, including CGI Federal.
Slashdot Mirror
Esta nueva aplicación me ayudó muchísimo! Por desgracia, todo lo que realmente sé hacer en español es hablar de gatos. Estoy atrapado en México y tengo que encontrar mi camino de regreso a los Estados Unidos! Qué haría el gato gruñón?
Better yet, place a banner at the top of each page found to be edited for pay. The banner can read "Company/Person X has been found to pay to edit this article to hide the truth from you. We have reverted those changes but here is a list of things that they don't want you to know: " I'd think that this behavior would end real quick when the dirt they're trying to hide becomes the highlight of the article.
Unless you have a camera pointed at the driver, there's no way these devices can be accurate. The most important part of being a good driver is paying attention
. Driving distracted is by far the greatest cause of accidents (80%). Person A could be driving 10 MPH over the speed limit completely aware of his surroundings and get smacked down as an "unsafe driver" by these devices while Person B gets a "safe driver discount" for driving all day long with cruise control on going the speed limit but completely oblivious to the world around them on a cell phone, eating, texting, etc. That aint right.
Yes because we all know that speeding always leads to accidents. Meanwhile the oblivious woman driving while talking on her cell phone while eating a hamburger with a bunch of screaming kids in the back is considered a safe-driver by these devices because she's got cruise control on and she's going exactly the speed limit.
It could be worse than that. At least he's not cold fjord.
Betteridge's law wins again!
Normal people know that there's a difference between HTTP and HTTPS?
You have a point in that the ISPs are not directly related to Hollywood. However, limiting the number of content providers (by making access to any but the big providers incredibly slow) reduces competition and makes it easier for content providers and producers to charge absurd rates. Competition is always bad for business..
Too many Dems are in bed with Hollywood and too many Repubs will scream about socialism because it places limitations on big business.
I was once googling for "evacuated cylinder solar collector",.
Holy cow, that's some nasty porn!
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/09/24/1235226/california-elementary-schools-to-test-anti-piracy-curriculum
The fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find all of the things in that sentence that the NSA violates regularly.
There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines. And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that.
Yes, that headline reads "New NSA revelations reveal activities that violate our constitutional right to privacy" Not a headline I'd want to be associated with.
"NO TOUCHING!"
At no point were the Dems who were pushing for this courting or expecting Republican votes, hence the procedural trickery they did in the Senate to pass it, but they did require the blue dogs and other center left Dems.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. How can people be so ignorant of something that happened only a few years ago? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112222617
Here's an interesting quote from Republican Senator Grassley:
"No public option. No play-or-pay. No things that are going to lead to any rationing of health care. No interference with the doctor-patient relationship," says Grassley. "About the only place we haven't made progress along the lines of what Republicans are wanting on the bill is in tort reform."
Do I have rose colored glasses on or do you have your blinders on?
I'll give you copyright, it has gone overboard for sure. Patents work when applied to novel physical inventions. The problem mostly is when they're applied to iterative software "inventions". But they seem to work fine for physical industries that involve manufacturing. I agree on prohibition but I wouldn't classify it as an industry regulation (although you could stretch it, sure). I would have gone with "banking regulations" as your third instead.
Still, I can counter with three successful regulatory agencies:
NHTSA - which regulates automobile safety pretty effectively
FDA - which has done a good job regulating food safety
OSHA - which has made our workplaces all safer to be in and protects us from being thrown out on the street if we are injured on the job
The government has plenty of flaws, too many to list. But to insist that it can't regulate effectively is just blind anti-government nonsense.
Lucky for you, you can still buy a car over the phone or by walking down to the local car dealership.
"Raise insurance costs on average" isn't accurate. It raises insurance costs among those who used to pay nothing at all or paid very little for what were basically scam coverage and provides better care for the increased cost to them and also pays a subsidy to those who were paying little because they couldn't afford it.
The average cost (that is including everyone in the country) will actually go down because the risk of needing healthcare will be spread across a wider pool of people, which is how insurance works.
This is not a response to you, because I won't dignify your name-calling with the satisfaction of having me take you seriously, Mr. Troll. This is a comment to anyone who might think you have a point (you don't).
The car is also available at your local dealership, by phone, or a good-old fashioned google search to get it direct from the manufacturer's website. Still, to most people it won't matter because their employers provide them with a car already.
There are two things that guarantee that the young and health people will sign up. First, anyone under 26 can stay on their parents' plans. Which means that their parents are paying for the "Employee + Family" plan rather than the "Employee + Spouse" plan. Secondly, the penalty for refusing to sign up starts off small but will rise to meet the cost of health insurance. This means that you really have two choices: pay money and get nothing or pay money and get health coverage.
Also, I'm not sure why you and GP call Obamacare a price control. It's not, at least not compared to say rent controlling in big cities. The closest thing to a price control in the law is that the insurance companies may not spend more than 20% of the premium income on administrative costs.
It's unrealistic to expect "no cost to you to comply" because the new minimum requirements provide better coverage than the ones that are being cancelled with the added benefit that the insurance company won't drop you the minute you need care because of some pre-existing condition you didn't know about. You are not paying more "just because Obamacare". If you cannot afford it, there are subsidies available to you to help cover the costs. The subsidy is available at my income level and I already have a comfortable amount of disposable income (my state is cheap to live in, though).
A few things:
1) The government does have an online presence. I don't know where this website falls on the scale of complexity compared to its other websites but most government agencies do indeed have some sort of website. This failure seems to be more of an outlier than the norm.
2) I do expect the government to be better at regulating than giving out successful contracts for two reasons. First, the government lacks control over the contracted company and cannot directly force the company to be successful. Secondly, the government has a lot more experience regulating as it already regulates many industries.
Here's a source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-usa-healthcare-technology-insight-idUSBRE99G05Q20131017
The work on Healthcare.gov grew out of a contract for open-ended technology services first issued in 2007 with a place-holder value of $1,000. There were 31 bidders. An extension, awarded in September 2011 specifically to build Healthcare.gov, drew four bidders, the documents show, including CGI Federal.
You appear to rely a lot on anecdotes and "gut feelings". You may want to do some research.
You're confusing "lose their insurance" with "have their insurance changed to comply with Obamacare."