It's wise and enlightened and principled. Every program is someone's favorite program. If people want their favorite program increased and only want cuts in non-favorite programs, then government grows without limits. If you don't want government to consume everything and be in total control of everything everyone does (with someone like Trump or Hillary in charge) you have to be willing to cut stuff you like.
Government agencies aren't known for controlling overhead costs.
"Give up any choice you have over your health coverage because... advertising costs" isn't a great message. I don't think you can get people to vote for that.
Obviously entire countries, including a big one bordering the U.S., have solved this problem long ago.
Yeah, the "solution" was to spend the last 60 or 70 years keeping costs from rising too fast. Are you suggesting we go back in time 60 or 70 years and start on that plan?
No country has gone from high costs to lower costs.
Advertising helps drug and device companies make a profit. They develop new treatments for profits. New treatments save lives and reduce suffering.
I know people in that industry. They don't work for free.
By the way, the point isn't necessarily to reduce costs, though that would be a nice bonus. The point is to make sure everyone has health care, including routine preventative care, something many poorer people don't do because they can't afford it. The upshot is that problems that otherwise either would have been preventable or caught early and treated for a lot less expense turn into serious conditions are are a lot more expensive to treat --- or the people either live in misery or outright die.
If you care about these causes, why not donate to them? Dem donors threw away $30 million to lose the GA-06 House electiion, and that wasn't even for a full congressional term.
If they cared about people, they'd donate to help people. But they're haters, so they'd rather spend their money on politics.
(Then they can take your money from your paycheck to setup an organization to "help" the people -- and put all their friends on the organization payroll.)
Not really. You get one of these tickets now, you go to court and the cop has to make his case that you were "careless and imprudent" to a judge. Before, all he had to tell the judge was that you had a phone in your hand.
There is no possible legitimate reason for a driver to be holding a cell phone at a red light.
Maps.
The drivers behind you do not want to have to hit their horn to make you move when the light changes
It's rude to make them wait an extra couple seconds. Minor rudeness isn't a police matter. If you want people to routinely have to face police enforcement for minor rudeness, that makes you a bad person. You make life worse for the people around you.
Good people don't want the police to threaten and detain and fine innocent people for following map directions on their phone.
What if the change I want is for people to stop obsessing about the latest media storytelling and the unspeakable tragedy of imperfect emotions-optimization and focus on real world concerns instead?
I can understand why board makers weren't very interested in supporting AMD's second-rate CPUs the past few years. It's nice to see them offering something competitive again.
The other point is, Intel's positive re-enforcement loop of having the best processors because they had the most revenues from selling the best processors to develop new processor fabs has been broken by ARM. Competition from ARM architecture drives fab R&D outside of Intel, so much so that Samsung foundries were shipping Qualcomm ARM processors at 10nm while Intel was still stuck at 14nm.
No, Intel just dropped the ball on that (or decided to let go of it). They had an 18-24 month lead and they let TSMC and Apple catch up.
Maybe they decided that dragging out (prolonging the inevitable end of) scaling by 4 years or so would be more profitable between now and 2025 than galloping to the finish line.
It only took them 30 minutes to post. I imagine it went something like this:
"Oh, yeah, Technology. I remember that stuff. People still care about that? I guess if you cared about Technology, this AMD news would rate a mention. I'll write something up. (The CEO is a woman, so we can even check one of the boxes that really matter.)"
Slashdot Mirror
It's wise and enlightened and principled. Every program is someone's favorite program. If people want their favorite program increased and only want cuts in non-favorite programs, then government grows without limits. If you don't want government to consume everything and be in total control of everything everyone does (with someone like Trump or Hillary in charge) you have to be willing to cut stuff you like.
We don't need to be spending a trillion dollars a year on defense when we don't even have a real enemy.
We don't. It's actually closer to half that much. But I agree it should be cut, along with more-or-less every other government expenditure.
Sad cat diary
Sad dog diary
Government agencies aren't known for controlling overhead costs.
"Give up any choice you have over your health coverage because ... advertising costs" isn't a great message. I don't think you can get people to vote for that.
Obviously entire countries, including a big one bordering the U.S., have solved this problem long ago.
Yeah, the "solution" was to spend the last 60 or 70 years keeping costs from rising too fast. Are you suggesting we go back in time 60 or 70 years and start on that plan?
No country has gone from high costs to lower costs.
...profit...advertising...wasted money.
Advertising helps drug and device companies make a profit. They develop new treatments for profits. New treatments save lives and reduce suffering.
I know people in that industry. They don't work for free.
By the way, the point isn't necessarily to reduce costs, though that would be a nice bonus. The point is to make sure everyone has health care, including routine preventative care, something many poorer people don't do because they can't afford it. The upshot is that problems that otherwise either would have been preventable or caught early and treated for a lot less expense turn into serious conditions are are a lot more expensive to treat --- or the people either live in misery or outright die.
This was studied. Health coverage doesn't significantly impact health.
It's logical to believe that it might, but the study says it doesn't.
And preventive care coverage doesn't cut emergency room use either.
Lots of people wish there were straightforward answers. Wishing does make it true.
All that complaining and nothing about safety. Bad manners aren't a police matter.
Why the hate though? Is everyone in your country as much of a jerk as you are, or are you an overachiever?
Productive work produces goods or services with economic value.
Nice troll. Campaign work is not productive work.
That's a lot of idle complaining, but no one has offered a workable plan to reduce health costs.
No country has reduced health care costs over time.
If you care about these causes, why not donate to them? Dem donors threw away $30 million to lose the GA-06 House electiion, and that wasn't even for a full congressional term.
If they cared about people, they'd donate to help people. But they're haters, so they'd rather spend their money on politics.
(Then they can take your money from your paycheck to setup an organization to "help" the people -- and put all their friends on the organization payroll.)
But jerks still want you to be fined for it.
Not really. You get one of these tickets now, you go to court and the cop has to make his case that you were "careless and imprudent" to a judge. Before, all he had to tell the judge was that you had a phone in your hand.
There is no possible legitimate reason for a driver to be holding a cell phone at a red light.
Maps.
The drivers behind you do not want to have to hit their horn to make you move when the light changes
It's rude to make them wait an extra couple seconds. Minor rudeness isn't a police matter. If you want people to routinely have to face police enforcement for minor rudeness, that makes you a bad person. You make life worse for the people around you.
Good people don't want the police to threaten and detain and fine innocent people for following map directions on their phone.
Mind your own business and stop being a jerk.
California has a law against texting or using your phone while driving. People generally do it anyway. No accidents are prevented.
Why shouldn't we be able to defend ourselves in court by saying we were texting while safely stopped at a red light?
It's nice to see a government where citizens are sometimes respected and treated like adults. Texting while stopped at a stop light is safe.
Levying fines against stop light texting is unjust and treats citizens like cattle to be randomly milked for money.
What kind of jerk wants their fellow citizens fined for no legitimate purpose?
What if the change I want is for people to stop obsessing about the latest media storytelling and the unspeakable tragedy of imperfect emotions-optimization and focus on real world concerns instead?
I can understand why board makers weren't very interested in supporting AMD's second-rate CPUs the past few years. It's nice to see them offering something competitive again.
The other point is, Intel's positive re-enforcement loop of having the best processors because they had the most revenues from selling the best processors to develop new processor fabs has been broken by ARM. Competition from ARM architecture drives fab R&D outside of Intel, so much so that Samsung foundries were shipping Qualcomm ARM processors at 10nm while Intel was still stuck at 14nm.
No, Intel just dropped the ball on that (or decided to let go of it). They had an 18-24 month lead and they let TSMC and Apple catch up.
Maybe they decided that dragging out (prolonging the inevitable end of) scaling by 4 years or so would be more profitable between now and 2025 than galloping to the finish line.
It's not like anyone has to be a hyper-political douchebag. Why do so many people decide to go that way? It obviously doesn't make them happy.
It's one of the top 5 tech stories this week (and it's only Thursday morning). It's my fault Slashdot editors aren't interested?
So we should stop coming here and just write our own web sites if we want Technology news?
It only took them 30 minutes to post. I imagine it went something like this:
"Oh, yeah, Technology. I remember that stuff. People still care about that? I guess if you cared about Technology, this AMD news would rate a mention. I'll write something up. (The CEO is a woman, so we can even check one of the boxes that really matter.)"
The "pyc" is silent.