Why is everyone responding couching this in terms of a binary success/failure? I have worked in the health insurance industry for 20 years, through lots of business, state regulation and federal regulation clusterfuck deadlines, and the typical pattern is;
Note that a deadline is approaching in a year or so Meet occasionally to marvel at how complex the change will be until 6 months before the deadline Assign a team to do the work with 4 months to go Have an "oh shit! ALL HANDS ON DECK!" come-to-Jesus meeting two months before the deadline where the CEO kicks some rhetorical ass The team works like hell to implement what they can Mid-level managers identify the *least* required functionality to avoid firing/contract penalties/lawsuit and/or prosecution Deliver *something* that technically meets the requirements Get an "attaboy" from the CEO on the heroic work done by everyone involved
I'm not even being sarcastic. This is how it works. ICD-10 ring any bells?
Is this a realistic prediction? I ask because your link is almost two months old, it's a Fox News story with the usual bias against the administration, and the underlying "facts" come from the American Enterprise Institute, of whom George W. Bush gushed, '"I admire AEI a lot--I'm sure you know that," Bush said. "After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people."' And we know how that administration turned out.
I'm not looking for Rachel Maddow's take, but how about something within the last month, from a source that's not rabidly anti-Obama?
New York is nowhere near Germany. New York would be like our Italy, with entrenched corruption
No, New York is not as corrupt as you represent, certainly nowhere near Italy, where you have to bribe the local officials to get cable. Sure, you can throw up some links to NY corruption stories, but it's not endemic, not even close to Italy. True, NY, like Italy, was until recently governed by a billionaire who did things his own way, but Berlusconi had "bunga bunga" parties with underage prostitutes, and Bloomberg... well, you may call him a nanny state mayor, but he spent over half a billion dollars of his own money on his official travel as mayor, renovations to Gracie Mansion (where he never lived), charitable programs for minorities, etc.
I don't believe that is exclusively an American problem.
But you must admit we are currently the reigning champs of delusion.
By what measure? They're burning "witches" and "warlocks" alive in Kenya today, and in Tanzania they prize body parts hacked off of living albinos (often children) as good luck charms.
As maddening as it is to see some fools hold signs that say "God hates fags!" and "Thank God for dead soldiers!" at funerals for servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan, it's not quite the same.
Normally, I think you get a choice. When I read up on it, cannot remember if it was a specific state or Canada, you had your choice of injection, stabbing by 5 men, Shot, and I think hung might of been in there as well.
Therefore, where the US Government has authority, that authority derives from the Constitution, and is subject to it. If I were in a place outside the US but subject to US authority, my Constitutional rights still exist.
If you re-read my post, you'll realize this was my position. As I said, "No one with half a brain would expect that it applies outside of the U.S. and any special extra-territorial locations, such as U.S. military bases outside the U.S.", but it does apply, as you said, anywhere the U.S. has authority.
It was Urza who claimed a bizarre universal (actually, multiversal) applicability. If you have a beef with anyone, it's him, and not me.
Sorry, you're off base with that old chestnut. People generally intelligent enough to reject one ignorant idea don't usually overlap with a group that does believe a different ignorant idea.
There are many theories on how the universe and life began.
This article is about evolution. Evolutionary theory is silent on how life first began. Read up a little before you weigh in with such a huge misconception. Here, take a look at this; it includes a cartoon to clarify the point.
I am picturing all the people I have known over the years that get up in arms when they hear about creationism being taught in school but also believe that feminism is destroying society by interfering with natural laws or whatever.
Really? That's odd, because creationism and believing feminism is destroying society are both ignorant ideas. I'm surprised you would see even significant anecdotal evidence of that.
But I don't see how you've invalidated the quantity argument, which is: we should all try to tone down our impact on the environment to some extent, from whatever point at which we start.
Your argument is invalid; why should individuals use fewer resources? There are plenty of resources on this planet, and we'll have access to off-planet resources within a hundred years or so. You mentioned the developing world who will also want a better lifestyle. Instead of covering the earth with people who can only use a modest amount of resources, it's my opinion humans should scale back population, to about half what it is now. My opinion is as good as yours, and more fun.
Your world, where everyone lives as modestly as you, looks like an anthill to me. I'm not going to scale back the enjoyment I get from this world using the capital that I earned (and yeah, I problem earn much more than you - hell, I probably pay more taxes than you earn).
And it's not that "some people have pointed out that doing this uses lots of resources", YOU have told me I use more than I should, and should live more modestly, like you. Keep trying to defend your judgment that people should use less, to be as virtuous as you, but I find it unconvincing, and you've run out of interesting things to say.
By design, Glass shows its information above and to the right of your eyeline, which would put the display somewhere near the sun visor. You have to actively look away from wherever you're focussing to use it.
Okay, Mr. Pedant, that's a wonderful hair you split. It's still less time to look at the Glass display than to move your eyes down to the monitor on the dash. But please, continue to claim there's no difference.
By failing to support MP4/H264 they are defacto creating a means of censorship , i.e. denying the ability to watch the videos to those who do not share the same ideological stance.
This is bullshit. You're abusing the definition of censorship the way politicians abuse the word "terrorist".
I can not view H.264 video on my system. I compile everything myself, and the source it is not available in a form that is legal for me to compile the codec, or interact with hardware that can decode it.
Thanks for this, but um, why did you post it to me? It's irrelevant to my point. It's meaningless.
First off, I said that the Constitution DOES apply to non-U.S. citizens, so, reading comprehension.
Second, you're simply wrong about the literally universal applicability of the Constitution. No one with half a brain would expect that it applies outside of the U.S. and any special extra-territorial locations, such as U.S. military bases outside the U.S.
Your absolutist position is amusing, but not practical, in that only a loon would try to exercise rights under the Constitution in relation to U.S. government action in those locations.
Why did you even post this? It's a waste of time - which is why I won't respond again, because you have seriously lost your shit.
By failing to support MP4/H264 they are defacto creating a means of censorship , i.e. denying the ability to watch the videos to those who do not share the same ideological stance.
This is bullshit. You're abusing the definition of censorship the way politicians abuse the word "terrorist".
The comment was about U.S. citizens who think their constitutional rights DO apply outside the U.S. (they don't), not that those rights SHOULD apply outside the U.S. (this is debatable).
I'm pretty sure a significant part of the US population think that their constitutional rights also apply outside of the US...
And there's probably good overlap of that part with the part of the U.S. population who think that the Constitution does *not* apply to non-citizens in the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, when the "requirements" are delivered late, wrong, and in the form of self-contradictory regulations ...
Right. Expand the scope up a level from the contractor to the customer, and the model is exactly what I described.
Okay, so no, you don't have any recent links from even a nominally unbiased source to show what we can actually expect.
Why is everyone responding couching this in terms of a binary success/failure? I have worked in the health insurance industry for 20 years, through lots of business, state regulation and federal regulation clusterfuck deadlines, and the typical pattern is;
Note that a deadline is approaching in a year or so
Meet occasionally to marvel at how complex the change will be until 6 months before the deadline
Assign a team to do the work with 4 months to go
Have an "oh shit! ALL HANDS ON DECK!" come-to-Jesus meeting two months before the deadline where the CEO kicks some rhetorical ass
The team works like hell to implement what they can
Mid-level managers identify the *least* required functionality to avoid firing/contract penalties/lawsuit and/or prosecution
Deliver *something* that technically meets the requirements
Get an "attaboy" from the CEO on the heroic work done by everyone involved
I'm not even being sarcastic. This is how it works. ICD-10 ring any bells?
...And the worst is yet to come, when some 80 million additional employer-sponsored policies are cancelled
Is this a realistic prediction? I ask because your link is almost two months old, it's a Fox News story with the usual bias against the administration, and the underlying "facts" come from the American Enterprise Institute, of whom George W. Bush gushed, '"I admire AEI a lot--I'm sure you know that," Bush said. "After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people."' And we know how that administration turned out.
I'm not looking for Rachel Maddow's take, but how about something within the last month, from a source that's not rabidly anti-Obama?
Thanks.
New York is nowhere near Germany. New York would be like our Italy, with entrenched corruption
No, New York is not as corrupt as you represent, certainly nowhere near Italy, where you have to bribe the local officials to get cable. Sure, you can throw up some links to NY corruption stories, but it's not endemic, not even close to Italy. True, NY, like Italy, was until recently governed by a billionaire who did things his own way, but Berlusconi had "bunga bunga" parties with underage prostitutes, and Bloomberg... well, you may call him a nanny state mayor, but he spent over half a billion dollars of his own money on his official travel as mayor, renovations to Gracie Mansion (where he never lived), charitable programs for minorities, etc.
http://news.sky.com/story/1188536/bloomberg-spent-650m-of-own-cash-as-mayor
After thinking about it, I realized that my home town of New York is like no other place on Earth. Thanks for that, it made my morning.
I don't believe that is exclusively an American problem.
But you must admit we are currently the reigning champs of delusion.
By what measure? They're burning "witches" and "warlocks" alive in Kenya today, and in Tanzania they prize body parts hacked off of living albinos (often children) as good luck charms.
As maddening as it is to see some fools hold signs that say "God hates fags!" and "Thank God for dead soldiers!" at funerals for servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan, it's not quite the same.
How could you leave out Homer?
You keep missing the point I wrote in plain English. Ah, but you seem like you may be intelligent in other areas.
Tricky.
... It's that simple.
There you go, that's your problem, right there.
Normally, I think you get a choice. When I read up on it, cannot remember if it was a specific state or Canada, you had your choice of injection, stabbing by 5 men, Shot, and I think hung might of been in there as well.
I would prefer the choice given Arthur Jarrett in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLctf4o6feQ
Therefore, where the US Government has authority, that authority derives from the Constitution, and is subject to it. If I were in a place outside the US but subject to US authority, my Constitutional rights still exist.
If you re-read my post, you'll realize this was my position. As I said, "No one with half a brain would expect that it applies outside of the U.S. and any special extra-territorial locations, such as U.S. military bases outside the U.S.", but it does apply, as you said, anywhere the U.S. has authority.
It was Urza who claimed a bizarre universal (actually, multiversal) applicability. If you have a beef with anyone, it's him, and not me.
Sorry, you're off base with that old chestnut. People generally intelligent enough to reject one ignorant idea don't usually overlap with a group that does believe a different ignorant idea.
There are many theories on how the universe and life began.
This article is about evolution. Evolutionary theory is silent on how life first began. Read up a little before you weigh in with such a huge misconception. Here, take a look at this; it includes a cartoon to clarify the point.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml
I am picturing all the people I have known over the years that get up in arms when they hear about creationism being taught in school but also believe that feminism is destroying society by interfering with natural laws or whatever.
Really? That's odd, because creationism and believing feminism is destroying society are both ignorant ideas. I'm surprised you would see even significant anecdotal evidence of that.
But I don't see how you've invalidated the quantity argument, which is: we should all try to tone down our impact on the environment to some extent, from whatever point at which we start.
Your argument is invalid; why should individuals use fewer resources? There are plenty of resources on this planet, and we'll have access to off-planet resources within a hundred years or so. You mentioned the developing world who will also want a better lifestyle. Instead of covering the earth with people who can only use a modest amount of resources, it's my opinion humans should scale back population, to about half what it is now. My opinion is as good as yours, and more fun.
Your world, where everyone lives as modestly as you, looks like an anthill to me. I'm not going to scale back the enjoyment I get from this world using the capital that I earned (and yeah, I problem earn much more than you - hell, I probably pay more taxes than you earn).
And it's not that "some people have pointed out that doing this uses lots of resources", YOU have told me I use more than I should, and should live more modestly, like you. Keep trying to defend your judgment that people should use less, to be as virtuous as you, but I find it unconvincing, and you've run out of interesting things to say.
By design, Glass shows its information above and to the right of your eyeline, which would put the display somewhere near the sun visor. You have to actively look away from wherever you're focussing to use it.
Okay, Mr. Pedant, that's a wonderful hair you split. It's still less time to look at the Glass display than to move your eyes down to the monitor on the dash. But please, continue to claim there's no difference.
By failing to support MP4/H264 they are defacto creating a means of censorship , i.e. denying the ability to watch the videos to those who do not share the same ideological stance.
This is bullshit. You're abusing the definition of censorship the way politicians abuse the word "terrorist".
I can not view H.264 video on my system. I compile everything myself, and the source it is not available in a form that is legal for me to compile the codec, or interact with hardware that can decode it.
Thanks for this, but um, why did you post it to me? It's irrelevant to my point. It's meaningless.
First off, I said that the Constitution DOES apply to non-U.S. citizens, so, reading comprehension.
Second, you're simply wrong about the literally universal applicability of the Constitution. No one with half a brain would expect that it applies outside of the U.S. and any special extra-territorial locations, such as U.S. military bases outside the U.S.
Your absolutist position is amusing, but not practical, in that only a loon would try to exercise rights under the Constitution in relation to U.S. government action in those locations.
Why did you even post this? It's a waste of time - which is why I won't respond again, because you have seriously lost your shit.
Holy shit! This is awful! Do you KNOW what she's DONE?
She made me look at a Google+ page! There are things you just cannot unsee.
Seeing the turn by turn navigation directions without looking away to the dashboard display is not "helpful"?
By failing to support MP4/H264 they are defacto creating a means of censorship , i.e. denying the ability to watch the videos to those who do not share the same ideological stance.
This is bullshit. You're abusing the definition of censorship the way politicians abuse the word "terrorist".
The comment was about U.S. citizens who think their constitutional rights DO apply outside the U.S. (they don't), not that those rights SHOULD apply outside the U.S. (this is debatable).
I'm pretty sure a significant part of the US population think that their constitutional rights also apply outside of the US...
And there's probably good overlap of that part with the part of the U.S. population who think that the Constitution does *not* apply to non-citizens in the U.S.
Worthless? Quaaludes were still only $0.10 each in the 70's you could get enough to keep you baked for a solid week for 2 bucks.
You're right, I forgot about that. Rorer 714, mmm mmm good!
It didn't even occur to me that anyone would miss the reference. I guess I'm old.