Bullshit, Read it again. It made a general statement that the US is primarily concerned with consumer welfare. That covers far more than antitrust law. And it certainly takes nothing away from my point, because if antitrust laws were properly enforced, insurance premiums would be way lower.
Liars. 14 million are working poor, the ones who, without government subsidies, will have to opt out because they simply won't have the money for the premiums. It won't be a opt out when you're forced out. Same with most of the 1.4 million seniors in retirement homes that are going to end up on the street. Same with the disabled.
And anyone with pre-existing conditions will be shut out. Cancer? 140,000 per year premium. Pregnant women? Costs will rise by $17,000.
For what? The tax cuts don't go to people making less than a million a year. So if you think your tax savings will make up the difference, you're probably wrong. This plan is simply a way to give millionaires and billionaires more money.
Did you ever use roads and sidewalks without paying a toll for each use? Drinking water and toilets? You want to look at what a country without a public sanitation infrastructure looks (and smells) like, go to India, where 600 million don't have toilets, where people shit on the sidewalks. Constructing infrastructure for use by all, irrespective of their ability to pay, means we don't have half the population taking a dump wherever they want.
And you spent years of your life leaching off others (you were literally a parasite when in the womb) before your first job, others paid for your existence.
Blaming it on the younger generation is bullshit. They are the ost indebted ever when it comes to education, and yet many can't find jobs. And when they can't find jobs, all I hear from assholes like you is "I was able to do it, so you should be able to, and if not it's your fault" - even though it was the previous generations that totally wrecked the economy. Oh, and "get more training."
I won't call you old fashioned, because old fashioned values included caring about those around you. Not "I've got mine, Jack!"
What do you expect - the author is an analyst == he needs to get the word out that he's willing to ignore realities that are unfavourable to what potential corporate customers want to here.
the U.S. is primarily concerned with consumer welfare
Tell that to the 22 million health care consumers who are going to be cut to give a tax break to millionaires. If they really cared, and cared about lowest cost, they'd bring in single payer universal healthcare. The cutbacks to the EPA that will result in dirtier air, higher fossil fuel consumption and pollution, and less water quality monitoring. And if you're going to use price as a proxy for caring, it's pretty damned obvious that the US is not considered with the rate of inflation of education leaving students looking at a lifetime of debt.
Take a look at the news - WannaCry barely affected XP boxes. Malware that takes advantage of holes in the latest and greatest just doesn't work that well on older stuff, because both expoitable mistakes and needed features to exploit if it's to work just aren't there. The people who were crying about how XP was the most vulnerable found out the hard way that Windows 7 was way more vulnerable. And if they had bothered to do ANY research, they would have found you didn't need to do an update, just turn off ONE SINGLE FEATURE - one that nobody uses anyway.
Usability and clarity should take precedence. Color schemes - not enough contrast. On-off sliders instead of checkboxes - major fail because they take up more room and it's not apparent if they're "on" or "off" at a glance. Gestures and swipes for too many things - not as easily user-discoverable, and they f*ck up.
It's crap. If Microsoft had done this, they would have been justifiably pilloried for it.
Thanks for making my point - the story is so f*d up that it's not necessarily clear. Again, the luminaries of the LGBT going out of their way to commingle the two in the minds of the public because many of them don't even know the difference. Sheesh!
Some of the stories are only available as web pages. When I see that's what's happening, I avoid it - as you said, there are some "issues" (I'm being a polite Canadian here) with hand-offs to web pages, and the pages themselves. And there are articles that, more and more, just refuse to load - some they'll fix it if you wait a few hours, others, permanently gone.
And some of the content is not suitable for readers without a strong stomach - like the one about Tim Horton Poutine Donuts! Poutine is a food group here, but these look disgusting. So much so that they won't even try to foist them off on Canadians. If the Americans ever want to build a wall between themselves and Canada, all they have to do is string these across the border.
The new layout benefits google, not you. By showing only the headline without the first few sentences as a summary, you have to click through to see the article to know if you even give a damn. That increases total ad views.
If you needed a reminder that you're the product, here you go.
Not really. At least this site gives more than just the headline without having to click on the bait. The new design is perfect if you're trying to force people to click through to even see if it's something they should care about. So of course, if you do click through, all the google ads on the site get their view count increased.
In other words, the new layout is designed to increase ad views.
I use google news fairly frequently (meaning most days) on my phone. I saw the new version after reading the story, and a link saying to go to their blog to see the difference. They have a side-by-side comparison, and it shows just how deficient the new layout is. A far better comparison than comparing it to how you might remember it, because memory might be wrong, but their own images are accurate. The new format sucks. Fortunately the mobile format can't tolerate so little information density without looking ridiculous. (but that might not stop them)
Not milk chocolate. There's simply not enough theobromine to kill a dog - they would have to eat their own weight or more. Milk chocolate isn't the same as baker's chocolate. The sugar would kill them before that point. There's plenty that vets push that is BS - such as large dogs needing heartworm vaccinations, or needing vaccinations every year, or vaccinations for leptospirosis, when the vaccine only protects against 6 out of more than 150 different types and has side effects.
The "healthy at any weight" movement is based on a lie. Obesity is not healthy. The movement is capitalizing on people not wanting to face the truth. Same as there was a "smokers rights movement" that eventually died because it too was based on a lie. Shaming works - sure, it takes decades, but in the case of smoking, history has proven that it has drastically cut down on an addiction that has been classed as "worse than heroin" - by heroin addicts who have kicked heroin but can't kick smoking.
Look at who's funding the ads promoting overweight and obesity being okay. Kellogs is one.
It's "gros cul" in french, not "grosse queue". "gros"= big, "cul" meaning bottom. As "cul-de-sac" literally means "bottom of the bag", but is actually translated as "dead end". You've reached the "bottom" of the street.
We're in the middle of a growing obesity epidemic, and NOTHING else has worked. Many people are addicted to food, same as they were to tobacco. It wasn't just the health scares that got people to quit smoking - it was the social pressure. And only similar social pressure will work with this epidemic. What's wrong with showing TV public service ads of obese people stuffing their face and asking "Are you really happy?" and showing the consequences.
Or junk food packaging with half the front and back covered with pictures of obese people? What do you have against truth in advertising? What do you have against saving lives?
Funny - mine hasn't been updated in a couple of years (at least) and no malware. It's the same as any other computer - don't download shit, don't go to shit web sites, and you'll probably be okay for years more.
Just went to their blog - look at the before and after pictures. The before has a lot more information visible at one time. When you're reading NEWS, you want NEWS, not white space. Fail.
Crap. Really crap. Think I'll stick with Reuters, CBC, and The Guardian - on my phone. It's pretty bad when a phone screen has a higher information density than a full-sized page.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit, Read it again. It made a general statement that the US is primarily concerned with consumer welfare. That covers far more than antitrust law. And it certainly takes nothing away from my point, because if antitrust laws were properly enforced, insurance premiums would be way lower.
Liars. 14 million are working poor, the ones who, without government subsidies, will have to opt out because they simply won't have the money for the premiums. It won't be a opt out when you're forced out. Same with most of the 1.4 million seniors in retirement homes that are going to end up on the street. Same with the disabled.
And anyone with pre-existing conditions will be shut out. Cancer? 140,000 per year premium. Pregnant women? Costs will rise by $17,000.
For what? The tax cuts don't go to people making less than a million a year. So if you think your tax savings will make up the difference, you're probably wrong. This plan is simply a way to give millionaires and billionaires more money.
Did you ever use roads and sidewalks without paying a toll for each use? Drinking water and toilets? You want to look at what a country without a public sanitation infrastructure looks (and smells) like, go to India, where 600 million don't have toilets, where people shit on the sidewalks. Constructing infrastructure for use by all, irrespective of their ability to pay, means we don't have half the population taking a dump wherever they want.
And you spent years of your life leaching off others (you were literally a parasite when in the womb) before your first job, others paid for your existence.
Blaming it on the younger generation is bullshit. They are the ost indebted ever when it comes to education, and yet many can't find jobs. And when they can't find jobs, all I hear from assholes like you is "I was able to do it, so you should be able to, and if not it's your fault" - even though it was the previous generations that totally wrecked the economy. Oh, and "get more training."
I won't call you old fashioned, because old fashioned values included caring about those around you. Not "I've got mine, Jack!"
You're an idiot. Even veterinarians, when pressed, admit that annual vaccines are not needed. Even for rabies.
What do you expect - the author is an analyst == he needs to get the word out that he's willing to ignore realities that are unfavourable to what potential corporate customers want to here.
the U.S. is primarily concerned with consumer welfare
Tell that to the 22 million health care consumers who are going to be cut to give a tax break to millionaires. If they really cared, and cared about lowest cost, they'd bring in single payer universal healthcare. The cutbacks to the EPA that will result in dirtier air, higher fossil fuel consumption and pollution, and less water quality monitoring. And if you're going to use price as a proxy for caring, it's pretty damned obvious that the US is not considered with the rate of inflation of education leaving students looking at a lifetime of debt.
Take a look at the news - WannaCry barely affected XP boxes. Malware that takes advantage of holes in the latest and greatest just doesn't work that well on older stuff, because both expoitable mistakes and needed features to exploit if it's to work just aren't there. The people who were crying about how XP was the most vulnerable found out the hard way that Windows 7 was way more vulnerable. And if they had bothered to do ANY research, they would have found you didn't need to do an update, just turn off ONE SINGLE FEATURE - one that nobody uses anyway.
Usability and clarity should take precedence. Color schemes - not enough contrast. On-off sliders instead of checkboxes - major fail because they take up more room and it's not apparent if they're "on" or "off" at a glance. Gestures and swipes for too many things - not as easily user-discoverable, and they f*ck up.
It's crap. If Microsoft had done this, they would have been justifiably pilloried for it.
Thanks for making my point - the story is so f*d up that it's not necessarily clear. Again, the luminaries of the LGBT going out of their way to commingle the two in the minds of the public because many of them don't even know the difference. Sheesh!
Some of the stories are only available as web pages. When I see that's what's happening, I avoid it - as you said, there are some "issues" (I'm being a polite Canadian here) with hand-offs to web pages, and the pages themselves. And there are articles that, more and more, just refuse to load - some they'll fix it if you wait a few hours, others, permanently gone.
And some of the content is not suitable for readers without a strong stomach - like the one about Tim Horton Poutine Donuts! Poutine is a food group here, but these look disgusting. So much so that they won't even try to foist them off on Canadians. If the Americans ever want to build a wall between themselves and Canada, all they have to do is string these across the border.
Even the Americans think it's gross.
The new layout benefits google, not you. By showing only the headline without the first few sentences as a summary, you have to click through to see the article to know if you even give a damn. That increases total ad views.
If you needed a reminder that you're the product, here you go.
Not really. At least this site gives more than just the headline without having to click on the bait. The new design is perfect if you're trying to force people to click through to even see if it's something they should care about. So of course, if you do click through, all the google ads on the site get their view count increased.
In other words, the new layout is designed to increase ad views.
Their "customizations" fail. Since when is prices of real estate stocks part of science? They're being gamed.
I'd say "what were they thinking", but after "material design", it's been established that usability takes a back seat.
I use google news fairly frequently (meaning most days) on my phone. I saw the new version after reading the story, and a link saying to go to their blog to see the difference. They have a side-by-side comparison, and it shows just how deficient the new layout is. A far better comparison than comparing it to how you might remember it, because memory might be wrong, but their own images are accurate. The new format sucks. Fortunately the mobile format can't tolerate so little information density without looking ridiculous. (but that might not stop them)
Not milk chocolate. There's simply not enough theobromine to kill a dog - they would have to eat their own weight or more. Milk chocolate isn't the same as baker's chocolate. The sugar would kill them before that point. There's plenty that vets push that is BS - such as large dogs needing heartworm vaccinations, or needing vaccinations every year, or vaccinations for leptospirosis, when the vaccine only protects against 6 out of more than 150 different types and has side effects.
The "healthy at any weight" movement is based on a lie. Obesity is not healthy. The movement is capitalizing on people not wanting to face the truth. Same as there was a "smokers rights movement" that eventually died because it too was based on a lie. Shaming works - sure, it takes decades, but in the case of smoking, history has proven that it has drastically cut down on an addiction that has been classed as "worse than heroin" - by heroin addicts who have kicked heroin but can't kick smoking.
Look at who's funding the ads promoting overweight and obesity being okay. Kellogs is one.
It's "gros cul" in french, not "grosse queue". "gros"= big, "cul" meaning bottom. As "cul-de-sac" literally means "bottom of the bag", but is actually translated as "dead end". You've reached the "bottom" of the street.
We're in the middle of a growing obesity epidemic, and NOTHING else has worked. Many people are addicted to food, same as they were to tobacco. It wasn't just the health scares that got people to quit smoking - it was the social pressure. And only similar social pressure will work with this epidemic. What's wrong with showing TV public service ads of obese people stuffing their face and asking "Are you really happy?" and showing the consequences.
Or junk food packaging with half the front and back covered with pictures of obese people? What do you have against truth in advertising? What do you have against saving lives?
Funny - mine hasn't been updated in a couple of years (at least) and no malware. It's the same as any other computer - don't download shit, don't go to shit web sites, and you'll probably be okay for years more.
And yet there are more people accessing the net via Android phones than iPhones. Way more.
Just went to their blog - look at the before and after pictures. The before has a lot more information visible at one time. When you're reading NEWS, you want NEWS, not white space. Fail.
Crap. Really crap. Think I'll stick with Reuters, CBC, and The Guardian - on my phone. It's pretty bad when a phone screen has a higher information density than a full-sized page.
What makes a question that can't be answered better in any way?
Because if you DO manage to answer it, you might learn where things went wrong for any particular action or event.
This is slashdot. Nobody reads the articles, so slashvertisements now cover the whole page.