You should only update your BIOS when you mean to. I'm of the opinion that it's something that you should mean to do, not something that should just happen automatically ever. So it doesn't need to be writable 99.999% of the time. So how about a switch that toggles the write enable pin to your bios flash on the front panel of your box?
Sure would make updating the thousand-odd servers in our datacentres a bit of a pain. Especially the ones we don't have easy physical access to.
If it was an obscure program I could understand that it might have wonky program requirements that aren't really Apple's responsibility, but WINE is probably one of the top 5 or top 10 programs that Mac users end up using.
I know a lot of Mac users, not one of them even knows what WINE is, let alone uses it.
Most Mac users who need to access Windows software in one of two ways: Boot Camp or virtualisation (Fusion, Virtualbox, etc).
That's not responsive. You claimed "... highly unlikely someone would contribute more....", as a comparison of someone being able to choose a public or a private system in situ.
No I didn't. I said over a reasonable timeframe publicly funded care is going to cost all but the most unusual corner cases, at worst, no more than private care would and _most_ will end up better off (ie: spending less overall) in a publicly funded system than they would with a private system.
As they say, the exception that "proves" the rule. In reality, we're talking about the 1930s or later in the modern world.
So "only" 80-odd years (3-4 generations) then ? What was the life expectancy back in the 1930s, do you think ? Perhaps more importantly, what was it for the century before that ?
You misunderstand "insurance": it is not necessary or useful if you can predict specific events a few years in advance. I was talking about the connection of premiums (costs to the insured) to the changes of insured risk, as a function of time. Actuaries can speculate plausibly over a few years of the status quo; over decades, too many confounding factors exist to write a contract.
You misunderstand the point of (well run) healthcare, which is not to be reactive to emergencies and unpredictable events at an individual level, but to improve health and quality of life across an entire lifetime and society.
No, it was that the system outlawed competition. Beyond national boundaries, those laws don't apply. This does not mean the system is fine.
Which remains irrelevant. Your assertion was that it was not possible to get care outside the public system, which is false. You can get care outside of the public system, you just can't get it in exactly the form you want.
Further, your underlying implication is that most (or even a significant fraction of) people would be better off with for-profit private care, which is not supported by the evidence.
If you are an average[0] person in a publicly-funded system, your costs, options and outcomes in a typical situation are going to be basically identical to a private system: accept the care the public system/your insurer provides, or pay for it out of your own pocket.
The big advantage with a public system comes in worse-case scenarios - the poor and/or higher-cost care - and particularly preventative care. In a private system, significant proportions of society either aren't insured, or can't afford to address anything but serious problems even with insurance.
While I don't agree with Canada's rules about private care facilities on principle (though I can understand the rasoning behind them), I doubt the outcomes are any worse - outside of unusual corner cases - in practice. Certainly I've never seen any evidence to support a claim they are.
[0] I actually suspect you need to be above average - over 1.5x median income level at least - before private care becomes competitive.
Uh, evidence ? Publicly funded healthcare systems _consistently_ have better outcomes at lower costs.
Government health care systems have barely existed for longer than a lifetime, over which demographics and costs have been on a constantly worsening trend.
Publicly funded healthcare dates back to the late 1800s (in Germany).
Averaging doesn't make sense like that. With real insurance, one's not left dreaming about the cost/benefits of "decades" of coverage, only a few plausibly forseeable years at a time.
You can foresee when you'll need expensive medical care a few years in advance ?
Not *competing* ones.
So... You can't get care from TMA ?
Right, there's an endorsal of the system.
How is an "endorsal of the system" relevant ? Your assertion was that it was not possible to get care outside of "the system", not whether or not "the system" provided adequate care.
Not really, as such people would be paying more into the system than they should: they are subsidizing the old/sick.
Individual contributions to public healthcare are proportionally quite low. It is highly unlikely someone would contribute more than their otherwise "private" healthcare costs (or insurance) would be, particularly when averaged over a reasonable timeframe (decades). However, I will concede it's probably possible to find a corner case or two where someone lives a charmed life from birth to death never suffering more than a cough, and thus paid more into the system than they derived in benefits.
That is the situation here in the great white up, a travesty, I tell you.
A quick Google search suggests there are private providers in Canada (eg: TMA).
Even that aside, are you suggesting that if you were to travel to the US (or some other country) for medical treatment, you would be stripped of your citizenship or not allowed to re-enter the country ?
Yes. Since you obviously have neither knowledge nor experience of publicly funded healthcare in the real world, only the paranoiac right-wing caricature of it, you're just going to have to trust me when I tell you how it actually works.
With government medicine, you get what the bureaucrats allow.
So just like only getting the care the bureaucrats in your insurance company allow, then ?
(That's assuming you have health insurance in the first place, of course, which in America is not a reasonable assumption.)
With private medicine, you can also get what you pay for.
Ah, I see, you're talking about the rich. Well, since there's nothing stopping you going out and getting your own private care in countries with public care, when you're rich, your choice is identical in either location - whatever you can afford (which is usually going to be more in the publicly-funded country, anyway, since their healthcare systems are typically more efficient).
With government medicine, that's basically the choice - no choice at all. OTOH, with a healthy market, there ought to exist local competitors.
With "government medicine" you generally have at least as much choice in who treats you and what treatments you get as you would with "private medicine".
Cute but wrong. Normal insurance policies cannot systematically force one group of clients to subsidize another, because the former would simply leave and get their insurance at a lower rate elsewhere.
So something like emigrating then ?
(Of course, people trying this would find that moving somewhere with cheaper healthcare that wasn't publicly funded rather difficult.)
Yes, it is. You are arguing the only two options are a list of pre-approved public healthcare treatments or a free-for-all of private-health-insurance-funded treatments.
You need to either start paying attention or bow out of discussions about this stuff.
You need to start looking at the situation with more than one eye half open.
Do you know what the difference is in a universal coverage state is?
Yes. The difference is everyone has some cover, vs a large chunk of people having none at all.
The government had already dictated what could be done and the more risky procedures that might have a better outcome would not be considered at all. You see, there are medical standards already in place pertaining to the treatment of about anything. Existing government care like medicare/medicaid will only pay for that type of care. When the doc calls the insurance company to get approval for something, it is something that will likely be beneficial to the patient but not already a standard treatment. You can be scared all you want, but it would be because of your own ignorance not anything in practice. Your government healthcare wouldn't even provide the opportunity for that kind of treatment in the first place.
Why are hospitals forced to provide healthcare services to people that cannot pay - this is one of the main drivers behind escalating costs of healthcare, but why is this the case?
For the same reason the police investigate crimes for people who cannot pay private investigators.
I had the same reaction when I read the first few lines of the headline, but no, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad thing. It's the latest attempt by the US at legislative colonisation of sovereign countries' IP laws.
Hence why the only major parties with policy platforms supporting their country's interests, rather than America's, are complaining about it.
The greens currently hold the balance of power in the Australian senate and they have for a long time, politically they cannot be ignored on any issue unless it has bypartisan support from both major parties..
Sadly it's pretty much guaranteed TPP will, given both major parties live by the philosophy "if it's good for America, it's good for Australia".
A flight from Madrid to New York costs 400 euros in coach, around 3000 in business. Damn, give me something decent for 800! I don't need champagne, I don't need slippers, I don't need a private selection of movies. I just need the legroom.
Most airlines have a Premium Economy option these days. Expect to pay about twice as much as regular Economy. It's roughly equivalent in terms of legroom and service as Business Class was ~20 years ago.
(Though Australia probably isn't going to be up there much longer, our world-leading real estate bubble is finally starting to pop.)
On top of that, the wealth disparities in the US are huge. The averages come out OK because of the relatively large number of [super-] high-net-worth individuals in the US, but if you start looking at the wealth and income around the median level (and especially consider the class mobility, which in America is just about the worst in the OECD), the average American is poorer than the average European (assuming we're using the EU countries as "Europe").
If you had you would have picked up the fact that the next step in the Swedish legal process is getting a detailed statement from Assange to decide if he should be charged and prosecuted - the very thing that Assange is resisting to the point of becoming a fugitive from justice [...]
This is a lie.
Assange is not resisting giving a statement - quite the contrary - he's resisting being extradited to a country known to co-operate in cases of extraordinary rendition with another country that has for the last decade demonstrated its willingness to operate outside not only international law and treaty, but common decency.
Assange has made it quite clear he will co-operate with an interview in the UK, something Swedish prosecutors have been happy to do in other cases but not, strangely, in this one.
Nearly everything our government does is important to someone but it's clear from our high taxes and massive deficit that we just can't afford it all.
The US has some of the lowest taxes in the OECD. It is in no way a high-taxing country, even in the context of its relatively minimal publicly-funded services.
I suppose if you postulate one person in an SUV then you've got something. Most of the world doesn't drive things the size of SUVs with only one person in them.
Yes they do. Commonly and frequently. Very, *very* few SUVs are being used to do something that couldn't be done equally well (if not better) in a smaller vehicle.
When you buy a system and colocate it, you get 100% of the system resources.
Which is fairly wasteful if all you need is 1% of them.
When you use OpenStack (or any resource virtualization scheme) you lose 15% of all the resources to begin with, all hardware-acceleration (no TOE on the network), and you are pushing storage over ethernet.
Utter rubbish. Outside of corner cases, virtualisation overhead is in the low single digits.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure would make updating the thousand-odd servers in our datacentres a bit of a pain. Especially the ones we don't have easy physical access to.
I know a lot of Mac users, not one of them even knows what WINE is, let alone uses it.
Most Mac users who need to access Windows software in one of two ways: Boot Camp or virtualisation (Fusion, Virtualbox, etc).
No I didn't. I said over a reasonable timeframe publicly funded care is going to cost all but the most unusual corner cases, at worst, no more than private care would and _most_ will end up better off (ie: spending less overall) in a publicly funded system than they would with a private system.
So "only" 80-odd years (3-4 generations) then ? What was the life expectancy back in the 1930s, do you think ? Perhaps more importantly, what was it for the century before that ?
You misunderstand the point of (well run) healthcare, which is not to be reactive to emergencies and unpredictable events at an individual level, but to improve health and quality of life across an entire lifetime and society.
Which remains irrelevant. Your assertion was that it was not possible to get care outside the public system, which is false. You can get care outside of the public system, you just can't get it in exactly the form you want.
Further, your underlying implication is that most (or even a significant fraction of) people would be better off with for-profit private care, which is not supported by the evidence.
If you are an average[0] person in a publicly-funded system, your costs, options and outcomes in a typical situation are going to be basically identical to a private system: accept the care the public system/your insurer provides, or pay for it out of your own pocket.
The big advantage with a public system comes in worse-case scenarios - the poor and/or higher-cost care - and particularly preventative care. In a private system, significant proportions of society either aren't insured, or can't afford to address anything but serious problems even with insurance.
While I don't agree with Canada's rules about private care facilities on principle (though I can understand the rasoning behind them), I doubt the outcomes are any worse - outside of unusual corner cases - in practice. Certainly I've never seen any evidence to support a claim they are.
[0] I actually suspect you need to be above average - over 1.5x median income level at least - before private care becomes competitive.
Uh, evidence ? Publicly funded healthcare systems _consistently_ have better outcomes at lower costs.
Publicly funded healthcare dates back to the late 1800s (in Germany).
You can foresee when you'll need expensive medical care a few years in advance ?
So... You can't get care from TMA ?
How is an "endorsal of the system" relevant ? Your assertion was that it was not possible to get care outside of "the system", not whether or not "the system" provided adequate care.
Individual contributions to public healthcare are proportionally quite low. It is highly unlikely someone would contribute more than their otherwise "private" healthcare costs (or insurance) would be, particularly when averaged over a reasonable timeframe (decades). However, I will concede it's probably possible to find a corner case or two where someone lives a charmed life from birth to death never suffering more than a cough, and thus paid more into the system than they derived in benefits.
A quick Google search suggests there are private providers in Canada (eg: TMA).
Even that aside, are you suggesting that if you were to travel to the US (or some other country) for medical treatment, you would be stripped of your citizenship or not allowed to re-enter the country ?
In which case you're getting at least equivalent - better in the case of no insurance - coverage from a public system.
No, I'm not aware of any country that prevents its citizens from seeking private care.
Yes. Since you obviously have neither knowledge nor experience of publicly funded healthcare in the real world, only the paranoiac right-wing caricature of it, you're just going to have to trust me when I tell you how it actually works.
So just like only getting the care the bureaucrats in your insurance company allow, then ?
(That's assuming you have health insurance in the first place, of course, which in America is not a reasonable assumption.)
Ah, I see, you're talking about the rich. Well, since there's nothing stopping you going out and getting your own private care in countries with public care, when you're rich, your choice is identical in either location - whatever you can afford (which is usually going to be more in the publicly-funded country, anyway, since their healthcare systems are typically more efficient).
With "government medicine" you generally have at least as much choice in who treats you and what treatments you get as you would with "private medicine".
Indeed. Let's take a moment to remember some of the failed socialist states and mourn for their destroyed economies:
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Germany
Australia
New Zealand
Singapore
Switzerland
Canada
So something like emigrating then ?
(Of course, people trying this would find that moving somewhere with cheaper healthcare that wasn't publicly funded rather difficult.)
Australia's economy is tanking, but more from the Voldermort Tax than from health care.
Even ignoring that the current Government is the lowest taxing in a couple of decades, that entire blog post is simply a collection of lies.
Yes, it is. You are arguing the only two options are a list of pre-approved public healthcare treatments or a free-for-all of private-health-insurance-funded treatments.
You need to start looking at the situation with more than one eye half open.
Yes. The difference is everyone has some cover, vs a large chunk of people having none at all.
You are presenting a false dilemma.
For the same reason the police investigate crimes for people who cannot pay private investigators.
Since you're the one making the argument publicly funded healthcare and a healthy economy are impossible, why don't you define "healthy" for us.
Hence why the only major parties with policy platforms supporting their country's interests, rather than America's, are complaining about it.
Sadly it's pretty much guaranteed TPP will, given both major parties live by the philosophy "if it's good for America, it's good for Australia".
Most airlines have a Premium Economy option these days. Expect to pay about twice as much as regular Economy.
It's roughly equivalent in terms of legroom and service as Business Class was ~20 years ago.
Really ?
(Though Australia probably isn't going to be up there much longer, our world-leading real estate bubble is finally starting to pop.)
On top of that, the wealth disparities in the US are huge. The averages come out OK because of the relatively large number of [super-] high-net-worth individuals in the US, but if you start looking at the wealth and income around the median level (and especially consider the class mobility, which in America is just about the worst in the OECD), the average American is poorer than the average European (assuming we're using the EU countries as "Europe").
Ok, but only if we dump them all there as babies. Wouldn't want anyone leeching off a public education, or the knowledge of previous generations.
This is a lie.
Assange is not resisting giving a statement - quite the contrary - he's resisting being extradited to a country known to co-operate in cases of extraordinary rendition with another country that has for the last decade demonstrated its willingness to operate outside not only international law and treaty, but common decency.
Assange has made it quite clear he will co-operate with an interview in the UK, something Swedish prosecutors have been happy to do in other cases but not, strangely, in this one.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The US has some of the lowest taxes in the OECD. It is in no way a high-taxing country, even in the context of its relatively minimal publicly-funded services.
Yes they do. Commonly and frequently.
Very, *very* few SUVs are being used to do something that couldn't be done equally well (if not better) in a smaller vehicle.
Which is fairly wasteful if all you need is 1% of them.
Utter rubbish. Outside of corner cases, virtualisation overhead is in the low single digits.
You're paying for unlimited downloads, not unlimited bandwidth.