What they mean by that is that they didn't intend for people to object to the ads or for their poor behavior to be called out.
It's really too bad, I have an older Samsung HDTV and it's really great. I was considering buying another Samsung when the time came to replace it. Now what am I going to buy? Sony? Vizio?
Unfortunately, America has doubled down on draconian punishment
Yes, much better to put a non-violent drug dealer in jail even though you have to release rapists to do it. (Yes, I know that TDPR was involved in some more "traditional" bad behavior, and I agree with his punishment for those acts.)
while losing sight of what we're trying to accomplish as a society.
Nonsense. We're trying to concentrate all wealth and power into the control of a few obscenely wealthy people. In that respect, we're doing great.
I think you probably meant loftier goals like wiping out hunger or disease. Trouble with those is that it's much easier to sell the plebes cheap Chinese shit than it is to solve the major problems facing society.. and by that I mean you can make money with the first one and not the second. So, solving societal problems is easy as long as someone makes a buck.
Do you realize what privatized "public" education would look like? It'd look great at first, until the inevitable consolidation starts in. Soon, we have the school equivalent of Wal-Mart. Then, once the monopoly is established, budgets will be cut and cut and cut, until the teachers are making minimum wage and class sizes are 100+. The company running the school would have a vested interest in finding the schools as little as possible. We all know how well that works in the health insurance industry. So, instead of sending your kids to a school with board members selected by the community, they go to a school where the decisions are made thousands of miles away. Look at private schools (and charter schools, for that matter) now: you can be excluded for the color of your skin, your faith, and especially your income.
Think about Walmart running your local school. Minimum wage teachers that are brought into this country on work visas, who know nothing about America other than the pay is better here, and who may or may not speak English well enough to be understood. No arts classes, no music, probably no Phys Ed (too much liability and the equipment is "expensive", where we define "expensive" as "it costs any money at all"). And what happens when some company like Hobby Lobby starts running schools and decides that evolution has no place in the schools (it's only a theory, after all), because as a non-governmental organization, they are not required to keep the church out of the schools.
Bad, bad, bad idea. If you don't like the schools, there are plenty of excellent private schools already. If you can't afford the tuition, or your kid is the wrong color, you have the choice to home-school. You have choices; you're not required to send your kid to public school.
Yes, I think that most teachers are driven by a passion to teach more than monetary concerns. You'd have to be, in my estimation. It's possible that if you make teaching lucrative enough, you'd get "sharks". However, teacher's salaries would probably have to triple before you started to see that. (Personally, you'd have to pay me more than the GDP of some small countries to do that job, but that's just me.). I think the more significant factor is on the other end of the spectrum; there are folks out there who would love to teach, but simply can't afford to because of the salary. The average teachers' salary is about $60,000 where I live. That sounds like a decent amount on its face, but 1) where I live the cost of living is probably triple what it is in other parts of the country, so that's more like $35-40k in a flyover state, and 2) that's an average, an entry-level teacher gets about $35,000. Unless you have a partner who makes good money, $35k is ramen-noodle studio-apartment territory (and that's if you're single.) Add in the student loans from the Master's degree you need, and the situation becomes impossible. It's not that they don't want to teach, it's that they can't live on the salary.
I wasn't referring to teacher retirement plans, which, you're correct, are usually better than average. I was referring to the general workforce, whose retirement plans are basically a roll of the Wall Street dice, since a company paying pensions is rarer than hens' teeth these days; you usually have to be unionized to get anything decent out of your employer.
No, pay them in line with the critical role they play in our society. And if you think that teachers' retirement benefits are extravagant, that's because overall (at least in the USA) retirement benefits are a joke, if they exist at all. 401k plans are fine and all, but you're putting your future in the hands of Wall Street, which has no interest in whether you can feed yourself after you retire.
The more you cut teacher salaries, the worse the teachers, because anyone with any brains at all will see private sector employment more and more appealing. Yes, there are bad teachers out there. Yes, they can be fired if they fuck up badly enough, union or no. (I'm sure there are plenty of bad teachers that aren't fired because the powers that be know they won't be able to replace them, because nobody wants to teach.) Being a unionized employee doesn't mean you can't get fired, as much as the right would like you to think so. CBAs ensure progressive discipline, not no discipline. In a nutshell, this means you can't be fired because you gave the wrong kid (whose parents are rich and powerful) an F on a test.
It's nice to see some actual science in this conversation. I don't know if I consider 1 additional severe reaction in 2300 to be worth the inconvenience of separate vaccines, but at least there's a rational basis for it.
The GOP controls enough state governments to put them in a majority in both houses of Congress, despite their unpopularity with the general population. Whether it's the national org or the state ones, it's still the same thing. The state parties do what the national party tells them, more or less, lest they find themselves primaried.
Justice is supposed to follow the law, not make decisions based soley on politics. If there were something illegal or unethical in the re-districting that they could make a case against, then they would. If it's clean (albeit distasteful) then what the hell is Justice supposed to do about it? Should Holder have rejected it because he reports to a Democratic president? Sure, Holder can play politics by deciding what to prosecute and how to exercise his executive authority, but if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. And I guarantee you they went over that redistricting with a microscope.
I wasn't vilifying anyone. Nowhere in that statement did I refer to the GOP, or indeed any particular organization, person, or group. I was making a statement that bad behavior is bad behavior, even when everyone does it. Gerrymandering is hurting our country, and that's gerrymandering both by the GOP AND the DNC.
Now I'm going to vilify someone: Your bias and knee-jerk politics are showing. You're seeing persecution where none exists. I bet you're a fundie, too.
Yes, the behavior is totally defensible because the other side does it as well.
You will slam them publicly when the GOP does it, but you will also make every attempt to avoid saying that the DNC is also doing it.
You're bitching because I didn't name the DNC specifically? What I was saying was more of a generalized statement, it could be applied to politics, business, sports, etc. For example, it's like saying using partially deflated footballs is OK because the other team does it too. Or like saying cable companies under-building infrastructure is OK because they all do it.
THE DNC ALSO ENGAGES IN GERRYMANDERING.Happy now?
And I'm the partisan asshole? "Pot? It's kettle. You're black."
I wasn't saying ALL of health care should focus on security, I was saying health care IT should. Part of that focus should be determining where the compromise point between security and convenience lies.. and in a HIPAA environment, security wins if there's a conflict.
Yes, there will be some inconvenience. That's not avoidable with increased security. Minimizing it is key to ensuring compliance. If the nurses bitch because they have to enter a password where they didn't before, well, tough shit. Part of the effort should also be giving security policies some teeth; when someone gets caught breaking policy (sharing passwords, etc) they should be punished progressively, eg verbal warning -> written warning -> suspension -> termination. Doctors, nurses, aides, upper management, everyone. Once a C-level gets fired for violating policy, I think you'll find everyone else falling in line.
Well, that's democracy in its current form for you. In 2010 the GOP got to re-draw congressional districts, and they gerrymandered them in such a way that anyone other than a staunch right-wing Republican will never ever get elected. You could run Jesus against the GOP candidate and it would be close.
Excuses. Clearly you don't have enough staff for the workload, or for some reason you can't find a consulting company to help you with either the code or the security.
I would suggest that security should be the top priority ahead of everything else. If, after starting to fix the security issues, you find that you can't keep up with the necessary code changes, hire more people.
Or, since the dumb people would choose not to vaccinate, the fact that it's required compensates for the stupid. I think you've got a case of cart-before-horse.
If you bother to look beyond the surface numbers, I will bet that you will find that poverty correlates much more strongly with infant mortality than rates of vaccinations. And MS is pretty poor.
Slashdot Mirror
What they mean by that is that they didn't intend for people to object to the ads or for their poor behavior to be called out.
It's really too bad, I have an older Samsung HDTV and it's really great. I was considering buying another Samsung when the time came to replace it. Now what am I going to buy? Sony? Vizio?
Yes, much better to put a non-violent drug dealer in jail even though you have to release rapists to do it. (Yes, I know that TDPR was involved in some more "traditional" bad behavior, and I agree with his punishment for those acts.)
Nonsense. We're trying to concentrate all wealth and power into the control of a few obscenely wealthy people. In that respect, we're doing great.
I think you probably meant loftier goals like wiping out hunger or disease. Trouble with those is that it's much easier to sell the plebes cheap Chinese shit than it is to solve the major problems facing society.. and by that I mean you can make money with the first one and not the second. So, solving societal problems is easy as long as someone makes a buck.
I think we can probably find a middle ground between anarchy and totalitarianism.
Are you stalking me or what?
That's a nasty jerk you've got in your knee, there. Neither taxes nor spending are mentioned anywhere here other than in your comment.
Well, apparently "jerk" is involved here, but not in the way I originally thought.
(psst.. that sig makes you look like a bigoted misogynistic asshole. Just thought someone should let you know.)
It's only illegal if you get caught. Even if you DO get caught, remember that rich people don't go to jail.
Don't bother, man. The opportunity for a reasoned debate has passed. He's made his position clear, and further arguing would serve no purpose.
Ah, you're one of those.
No. Fucking. Way.
Do you realize what privatized "public" education would look like? It'd look great at first, until the inevitable consolidation starts in. Soon, we have the school equivalent of Wal-Mart. Then, once the monopoly is established, budgets will be cut and cut and cut, until the teachers are making minimum wage and class sizes are 100+. The company running the school would have a vested interest in finding the schools as little as possible. We all know how well that works in the health insurance industry. So, instead of sending your kids to a school with board members selected by the community, they go to a school where the decisions are made thousands of miles away. Look at private schools (and charter schools, for that matter) now: you can be excluded for the color of your skin, your faith, and especially your income.
Think about Walmart running your local school. Minimum wage teachers that are brought into this country on work visas, who know nothing about America other than the pay is better here, and who may or may not speak English well enough to be understood. No arts classes, no music, probably no Phys Ed (too much liability and the equipment is "expensive", where we define "expensive" as "it costs any money at all"). And what happens when some company like Hobby Lobby starts running schools and decides that evolution has no place in the schools (it's only a theory, after all), because as a non-governmental organization, they are not required to keep the church out of the schools.
Bad, bad, bad idea. If you don't like the schools, there are plenty of excellent private schools already. If you can't afford the tuition, or your kid is the wrong color, you have the choice to home-school. You have choices; you're not required to send your kid to public school.
Yes, I think that most teachers are driven by a passion to teach more than monetary concerns. You'd have to be, in my estimation. It's possible that if you make teaching lucrative enough, you'd get "sharks". However, teacher's salaries would probably have to triple before you started to see that. (Personally, you'd have to pay me more than the GDP of some small countries to do that job, but that's just me.). I think the more significant factor is on the other end of the spectrum; there are folks out there who would love to teach, but simply can't afford to because of the salary. The average teachers' salary is about $60,000 where I live. That sounds like a decent amount on its face, but 1) where I live the cost of living is probably triple what it is in other parts of the country, so that's more like $35-40k in a flyover state, and 2) that's an average, an entry-level teacher gets about $35,000. Unless you have a partner who makes good money, $35k is ramen-noodle studio-apartment territory (and that's if you're single.) Add in the student loans from the Master's degree you need, and the situation becomes impossible. It's not that they don't want to teach, it's that they can't live on the salary.
I wasn't referring to teacher retirement plans, which, you're correct, are usually better than average. I was referring to the general workforce, whose retirement plans are basically a roll of the Wall Street dice, since a company paying pensions is rarer than hens' teeth these days; you usually have to be unionized to get anything decent out of your employer.
No, pay them in line with the critical role they play in our society. And if you think that teachers' retirement benefits are extravagant, that's because overall (at least in the USA) retirement benefits are a joke, if they exist at all. 401k plans are fine and all, but you're putting your future in the hands of Wall Street, which has no interest in whether you can feed yourself after you retire.
The more you cut teacher salaries, the worse the teachers, because anyone with any brains at all will see private sector employment more and more appealing. Yes, there are bad teachers out there. Yes, they can be fired if they fuck up badly enough, union or no. (I'm sure there are plenty of bad teachers that aren't fired because the powers that be know they won't be able to replace them, because nobody wants to teach.) Being a unionized employee doesn't mean you can't get fired, as much as the right would like you to think so. CBAs ensure progressive discipline, not no discipline. In a nutshell, this means you can't be fired because you gave the wrong kid (whose parents are rich and powerful) an F on a test.
Well, *I* know what I was talking about, and it wasn't GOP-related. Don't try to tell me what I meant.
As I indicated in another reply, that was referring to health care IT, not doctors or other caregivers.
The statement:
I don't see GOP anywhere. You try again, dipshit.
It's nice to see some actual science in this conversation. I don't know if I consider 1 additional severe reaction in 2300 to be worth the inconvenience of separate vaccines, but at least there's a rational basis for it.
The GOP controls enough state governments to put them in a majority in both houses of Congress, despite their unpopularity with the general population. Whether it's the national org or the state ones, it's still the same thing. The state parties do what the national party tells them, more or less, lest they find themselves primaried.
Justice is supposed to follow the law, not make decisions based soley on politics. If there were something illegal or unethical in the re-districting that they could make a case against, then they would. If it's clean (albeit distasteful) then what the hell is Justice supposed to do about it? Should Holder have rejected it because he reports to a Democratic president? Sure, Holder can play politics by deciding what to prosecute and how to exercise his executive authority, but if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. And I guarantee you they went over that redistricting with a microscope.
I wasn't vilifying anyone. Nowhere in that statement did I refer to the GOP, or indeed any particular organization, person, or group. I was making a statement that bad behavior is bad behavior, even when everyone does it. Gerrymandering is hurting our country, and that's gerrymandering both by the GOP AND the DNC.
Now I'm going to vilify someone: Your bias and knee-jerk politics are showing. You're seeing persecution where none exists. I bet you're a fundie, too.
You're bitching because I didn't name the DNC specifically? What I was saying was more of a generalized statement, it could be applied to politics, business, sports, etc. For example, it's like saying using partially deflated footballs is OK because the other team does it too. Or like saying cable companies under-building infrastructure is OK because they all do it.
THE DNC ALSO ENGAGES IN GERRYMANDERING. Happy now?
And I'm the partisan asshole? "Pot? It's kettle. You're black."
I wasn't saying ALL of health care should focus on security, I was saying health care IT should. Part of that focus should be determining where the compromise point between security and convenience lies.. and in a HIPAA environment, security wins if there's a conflict.
Yes, there will be some inconvenience. That's not avoidable with increased security. Minimizing it is key to ensuring compliance. If the nurses bitch because they have to enter a password where they didn't before, well, tough shit. Part of the effort should also be giving security policies some teeth; when someone gets caught breaking policy (sharing passwords, etc) they should be punished progressively, eg verbal warning -> written warning -> suspension -> termination. Doctors, nurses, aides, upper management, everyone. Once a C-level gets fired for violating policy, I think you'll find everyone else falling in line.
Yes, the behavior is totally defensible because the other side does it as well.
Except, you know, not.
Well, that's democracy in its current form for you. In 2010 the GOP got to re-draw congressional districts, and they gerrymandered them in such a way that anyone other than a staunch right-wing Republican will never ever get elected. You could run Jesus against the GOP candidate and it would be close.
Excuses. Clearly you don't have enough staff for the workload, or for some reason you can't find a consulting company to help you with either the code or the security.
I would suggest that security should be the top priority ahead of everything else. If, after starting to fix the security issues, you find that you can't keep up with the necessary code changes, hire more people.
Or, since the dumb people would choose not to vaccinate, the fact that it's required compensates for the stupid. I think you've got a case of cart-before-horse.
If you bother to look beyond the surface numbers, I will bet that you will find that poverty correlates much more strongly with infant mortality than rates of vaccinations. And MS is pretty poor.