Under the socialized system, I'd vote to have her be considered a lost cause. She's not worth a quarter million dollars to anybody other than you.
Under the non-socialized system, you have the opportunity to pay much more. If she's worth ten billion dollars to you and you have the money, go right ahead.
Patients should be paying for accident/disability insurance if they want a big payout when a doctor screws up. That "if" matters; nobody should be forced to have these costs.
Doctors should never pay. If they screw up because of incompetence, they should lose their career. If they screw up because they want to do harm, they should lose their freedom: go to jail.
Right now, as a patient, I'm paying crazy bills in part because there are people who habitually sue the doctors. I want to opt out, and I don't want my doctor being a middleman passing money from me to a malpractice insurance company.
As a general rule, poor people create more poor people. ("poor" is associated with violence and stupidity)
Do we want to be a nation of poor people? That's what we get if we keep them alive. That's what we get when they breed.
Keep that up, and we'll be a 3rd world country in no time.
Letting the poor people die is surely no worse than your example of Norway letting the elderly die. It's still letting people die. While the elderly may be mostly useless, at least they don't make more elderly.
Tylenol can easily destroy your liver. There is a very small difference between the effective dose and the poisonous dose. Add alcohol, and the situation is even worse.
While 99% of US adults can "read and write", such a figure includes people who struggle with books like The Cat and the Hat.
Only 1/6 of US adults are literate in a meaningful way. By this I mean that they can read a couple essays and then write up a comparison of viewpoint or similar. I don't mean anything fancy either, with subtle issues and big words.
Most people are ashamed of their reading ability. (rightly so!) Most people try to hide this, and will even deny it to people researching the problem. One must actually test people to see that illiteracy is the norm.
If you can't enjoy the reading, there isn't much reason for a decent internet connection. You could see some video. (if you find it) You could have the connection for aspirational reasons, just like having a McMansion or Hummer H2. That's about it. You'd lose some of the ability to proudly (yes, proudly!) proclaim that you don't know anything about computers. You'd even have to pay money. Obviously, fast internet service is not a good thing.
For cut-and-paste, it depends on how the operation is controlled. The web sites must not be able to freely read and write to a shared cut/paste buffer. It has to only operate under user control.
(ideally with OS-level trusted path, but for now we can settle for decent browser control)
I'm not so sure there is legitimate cross-site scripting. Possibly it's OK to have web sites specify trusted peers. Possibly it's OK to have an anything-goes policy for unencrypted sites.
Half my desktop or more is web. These days you can use the web for spreadsheets, word processing, email, chat, and so on.
Closing all those windows would suck ass.
The browser damn well ought to isolate the web sites 100% from each other. WTF?
Instead, the damn thing frustrates any attempt at manual isolation. If I try to start a second instance, that one does some retarded RPC thing to have my other browser instance spawn the new window -- and then that second instance exits!
It's not even fail safe. Crash in one window, and all the windows go.
IMHO, a retarded bovine could get security right. It took real effort to fuck things up.
You shouldn't even care what race the president is. With all the mixed people running around, "race" is getting to be a really backwards idea anyway.
Let me guess... you were part of the affirmative action vote. Tell me, what is the quota for the presidency? One token? Preference is still racism, even if you prefer a "black" person.
Things didn't work out quite as well as desired. The plane tends to carve up the ground pretty well. Still, it does work. If you bulldoze a second runway, or redo the one you landed on, you can even take off again.
An extra bonus is that the president can easily bring a helicopter with him. (or a main battle tank!)
Nearly always, a plane has less than a dozen empty seats. Delta is especially "good" about this, overbooking every flight and then failing to serve a half dozen customers per flight.
Buses and trains tend to be far from full. Something like 25% full seems about right. They also take incredibly indirect routes (factoring in the bus/train changes), adding many many miles to the trip.
Woah, that is FUCKED UP. But of course I already knew about PETA.
I'm not about to confuse a fish with a kitten, but if I did, I'd want them all dead! Cats kill most of the native wildlife, spread toxoplasmosis and other horrible diseases, dig up gardens, and poop in sandboxes. Cats are evil. Kittens are just small cats. Die, die, die!!!
PETA's intent must be... that we should kill all fish?
It all depends what you've done to deserve that. Driving farmers off their land, and families out of their houses should not be tolerated.
That isn't killing. The rockets are killing.
In any case, Israel shouldn't have to give up its own land to have a secured boarder region. The people launching rockets should give up land for this purpose. They cause the need for a wide boarder region, and so they should pay the cost. Land is only part of the cost; the Palestinians should also pay for the concrete and steel and labor. (or, better yet, not cause Israel to need such an outrageous thing)
Someone needs to fight for these people.
For people who won't even allow non-muslims to simply exist? No, definitely not.
If you are really as clueless as you act, please take a trip to Saudi Arabia with a bible in your suitcase. That'll make your trip "interesting". Meanwhile, those Jews you hate so much have yet to bulldoze the mosque sitting right on the Temple Mount.
I can only name one single country with a muslim majority that is even remotely tolerable for anybody of any other religeon. (Turkey) All the rest are into brutal human rights abuses; it is quite reasonable to return the favor.
Israel is 1/6 muslim. No kidding. They even get the right to vote, and have people in parliament. This portion is increasing because of birth rate differences. There is no "invading"; muslims are born in Israel as citizens.
Once Israel becomes 51% muslim, Islamic law can control Israel.
This process will snowball. As the remaining Jews see the demographic changes, they will begin to leave. (probably for the USA) Of course, that accelerates the demographic changes far beyond birth rate differences alone.
BTW, it's pretty strange to call the recipient of daily rocket attacks an "aggressive destroyer of good will". Most any country would instantly consider itself at war if a neighbor did that. The recent truce in Gaza lasted 15 minutes, ended by more rockets hitting Israel.
Over there, slaughter is a given. The only choices to be made are:
1. who dies? 2. slow or fast?
Sorry, but "no slaughter" is not an option. Islam is not compatible with that.
Prediction: because of demographic changes taking place in Israel, it won't be many generations until Israel becomes Islamic. Many refugees will flee, and the remaining Jews will be executed. Unlike in Germany, nobody there will be sorry.
You'd rather keep people killing each other for as long as possible, ensuring maximum death.
Hitler was a whole different matter. Without him, the Jews and non-Jews of Europe weren't seriously into killing each other.
It's totally different with Muslims. They also like killing Christians, Athiests, Hindus, and everybody else. (note the recent troubles in India, the latest of many) We can't simply get rid of some crazy leader to civilize them.
Also, it was possible to eliminate Hitler without then creating Israel. We didn't need to make a special country for the Jews.
At some point you have to realize that it's going to be a fight to the death. Why drag that out for the next 5 centuries? Many more people will suffer and die, on both sides, if this keeps going.
Life is disgusting. Live with it, or die.
Right now, a simple genocide would eliminate 100% of just a few generations on one side, plus XX% of those generations on the winning side. There, done! Dragging things out means XX% of every generation for the next N centuries. That's much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the socialized system, I'd vote to have her be considered a lost cause. She's not worth a quarter million dollars to anybody other than you.
Under the non-socialized system, you have the opportunity to pay much more. If she's worth ten billion dollars to you and you have the money, go right ahead.
Patients should be paying for accident/disability
insurance if they want a big payout when a doctor
screws up. That "if" matters; nobody should be
forced to have these costs.
Doctors should never pay. If they screw up because
of incompetence, they should lose their career.
If they screw up because they want to do harm,
they should lose their freedom: go to jail.
Right now, as a patient, I'm paying crazy bills
in part because there are people who habitually
sue the doctors. I want to opt out, and I don't
want my doctor being a middleman passing money
from me to a malpractice insurance company.
As a general rule, poor people create more poor people. ("poor" is associated with violence and stupidity)
Do we want to be a nation of poor people? That's what we get if we keep them alive. That's what we get when they breed.
Keep that up, and we'll be a 3rd world country in no time.
Letting the poor people die is surely no worse than your example of Norway letting the elderly die. It's still letting people die. While the elderly may be mostly useless, at least they don't make more elderly.
Tylenol can easily destroy your liver. There is a very small difference between the effective dose and the poisonous dose. Add alcohol, and the situation is even worse.
While 99% of US adults can "read and write", such a figure includes people who struggle with books like The Cat and the Hat.
Only 1/6 of US adults are literate in a meaningful way. By this I mean that they can read a couple essays and then write up a comparison of viewpoint or similar. I don't mean anything fancy either, with subtle issues and big words.
Most people are ashamed of their reading ability. (rightly so!) Most people try to hide this, and will even deny it to people researching the problem. One must actually test people to see that illiteracy is the norm.
If you can't enjoy the reading, there isn't much reason for a decent internet connection. You could see some video. (if you find it) You could have the connection for aspirational reasons, just like having a McMansion or Hummer H2. That's about it. You'd lose some of the ability to proudly (yes, proudly!) proclaim that you don't know anything about computers. You'd even have to pay money. Obviously, fast internet service is not a good thing.
That 30 seconds means you simply don't check
something with Google or Wikipedia.
With a tolerably fast always-on connection,
you look up whatever question pops into your mind.
This is educational and generally useful.
This ability probably makes the difference
between leaving your computer off or on.
If you've never experienced this ability, you
don't imagine how useful it would be. You just
ignore your own spontaneous desires for more info.
Cars may not be sold in the USA if the crash protection is worse than a beer can.
Mercury Computer Systems, Inc.
late 1990's, maybe early 1990's, maybe ongoing
Each CPU had mailboxes in the north bridge chip.
For cut-and-paste, it depends on how the operation
is controlled. The web sites must not be able to
freely read and write to a shared cut/paste buffer.
It has to only operate under user control.
(ideally with OS-level trusted path, but for now
we can settle for decent browser control)
I'm not so sure there is legitimate cross-site
scripting. Possibly it's OK to have web sites
specify trusted peers. Possibly it's OK to have
an anything-goes policy for unencrypted sites.
You might have an account, but you certainly
aren't depending on it and getting lots of
email through it.
Any browser window containing content from more
than one security context must NOT display any
sort of lock icon, and must display a warning
banner.
"more than one" would include an https site that
uses some http images. It's not secure if it's
a mix.
Half my desktop or more is web. These days you
can use the web for spreadsheets, word processing,
email, chat, and so on.
Closing all those windows would suck ass.
The browser damn well ought to isolate the
web sites 100% from each other. WTF?
Instead, the damn thing frustrates any attempt
at manual isolation. If I try to start a second
instance, that one does some retarded RPC thing
to have my other browser instance spawn the new
window -- and then that second instance exits!
It's not even fail safe. Crash in one window,
and all the windows go.
IMHO, a retarded bovine could get security right.
It took real effort to fuck things up.
You shouldn't even care what race the president is.
With all the mixed people running around, "race"
is getting to be a really backwards idea anyway.
Let me guess... you were part of the affirmative
action vote. Tell me, what is the quota for the
presidency? One token? Preference is still racism,
even if you prefer a "black" person.
The C-5 can land on grass or dirt.
Things didn't work out quite as well as desired. The plane tends to carve up the ground pretty well. Still, it does work. If you bulldoze a second runway, or redo the one you landed on, you can even take off again.
An extra bonus is that the president can easily bring a helicopter with him. (or a main battle tank!)
top up before landing
Wikipedia says:
"The 777-200LR is capable of flying 9,450 nautical miles (17,501 km, equivalent to 7/16 of the earth's circumference) in 18 hours."
That's a winner. Sure, the president gets an air refueling feature, but using it is a logistical pain. Range is good.
Nearly always, a car holds 1 person.
Nearly always, a plane has less than a dozen empty seats. Delta is especially "good" about this, overbooking every flight and then failing to serve a half dozen customers per flight.
Buses and trains tend to be far from full. Something like 25% full seems about right. They also take incredibly indirect routes (factoring in the bus/train changes), adding many many miles to the trip.
Woah, that is FUCKED UP. But of course I already knew about PETA.
I'm not about to confuse a fish with a kitten, but if I did, I'd want them all dead! Cats kill most of the native wildlife, spread toxoplasmosis and other horrible diseases, dig up gardens, and poop in sandboxes. Cats are evil. Kittens are just small cats. Die, die, die!!!
PETA's intent must be... that we should kill all fish?
It all depends what you've done to deserve that. Driving farmers off their land, and families out of their houses should not be tolerated.
That isn't killing. The rockets are killing.
In any case, Israel shouldn't have to give up its own land to have a secured boarder region. The people launching rockets should give up land for this purpose. They cause the need for a wide boarder region, and so they should pay the cost. Land is only part of the cost; the Palestinians should also pay for the concrete and steel and labor. (or, better yet, not cause Israel to need such an outrageous thing)
Someone needs to fight for these people.
For people who won't even allow non-muslims to simply exist? No, definitely not.
If you are really as clueless as you act, please take a trip to Saudi Arabia with a bible in your suitcase. That'll make your trip "interesting". Meanwhile, those Jews you hate so much have yet to bulldoze the mosque sitting right on the Temple Mount.
I can only name one single country with a muslim majority that is even remotely tolerable for anybody of any other religeon. (Turkey) All the rest are into brutal human rights abuses; it is quite reasonable to return the favor.
Nope, not a Jew.
Israel is 1/6 muslim. No kidding. They even get
the right to vote, and have people in parliament.
This portion is increasing because of birth rate
differences. There is no "invading"; muslims are
born in Israel as citizens.
Once Israel becomes 51% muslim, Islamic law can
control Israel.
This process will snowball. As the remaining Jews
see the demographic changes, they will begin to
leave. (probably for the USA) Of course, that
accelerates the demographic changes far beyond
birth rate differences alone.
BTW, it's pretty strange to call the recipient
of daily rocket attacks an "aggressive destroyer
of good will". Most any country would instantly
consider itself at war if a neighbor did that.
The recent truce in Gaza lasted 15 minutes, ended
by more rockets hitting Israel.
Over there, slaughter is a given. The only choices
to be made are:
1. who dies?
2. slow or fast?
Sorry, but "no slaughter" is not an option.
Islam is not compatible with that.
Prediction: because of demographic changes taking
place in Israel, it won't be many generations
until Israel becomes Islamic. Many refugees will
flee, and the remaining Jews will be executed.
Unlike in Germany, nobody there will be sorry.
So my best guess is:
1. Jews
2. one century
Oh no. I figure it's pointless though.
You'd rather keep people killing each other
for as long as possible, ensuring maximum death.
Hitler was a whole different matter. Without him,
the Jews and non-Jews of Europe weren't seriously
into killing each other.
It's totally different with Muslims. They also
like killing Christians, Athiests, Hindus, and
everybody else. (note the recent troubles in
India, the latest of many) We can't simply get
rid of some crazy leader to civilize them.
Also, it was possible to eliminate Hitler without
then creating Israel. We didn't need to make a
special country for the Jews.
There may be people who cancelled their terrorism
because the security looked too difficult to defeat.
Security theater isn't without value.
You'd attempt peace. Over the next N centuries,
perhaps a billion people suffer and die in Gaza.
There currently aren't that many people in Gaza.
See the problem? You cause MORE death.
At some point you have to realize that it's going
to be a fight to the death. Why drag that out for
the next 5 centuries? Many more people will suffer
and die, on both sides, if this keeps going.
Life is disgusting. Live with it, or die.
Right now, a simple genocide would eliminate 100%
of just a few generations on one side, plus XX% of
those generations on the winning side. There, done!
Dragging things out means XX% of every generation
for the next N centuries. That's much worse.