Yeah, that's not true. You should look up ICD 9 codes and its replacement ICD 10. Many (most?) insurance plans require your provider to submit these codes when billing for treatments.
And what kind of carpet-cleaning business maintains a "database" of their customers?
Most businesses in the US maintain a database of their customers. At it's simplest form, it's the ledger, which tracks payments in (and what they were for) and payments out (and what they were for). Beyond that, most service businesses are going to maintain records of what their employees were doing on any given day, including where they went and for how long and what the job was.
Here's a better one for you that bit me in the ass:
crontab has two options next to each other on the (qwerty) keyboard. "-e" opens the current crontab file for editing. Care to guess what "-r" does? In the infinite wisdom of the developers, it removes the current crontab file. No confirmation, no backup, just delete. They have added a new option "-i" which asks for confirmation before deleting the file, of course that doesn't actually solve the mis-type problem.
There is an option to set the font to bold, which does dramatically improve the thin fonts (though some of the larger text, like the lock screen clock looks odd), it's under the accessibility settings. There's also an increase contrast option (which is distinct from the invert colors option) though I haven't found where that takes effect.
There are a number of UX issues with iOS 7 that I'm frankly quite surprised made it through testing or that anyone thought these were good ideas. Ignoring the theme itself (lower definition icons means less context, especially with hi res screens, that context would have been very usable it's the whole reason we do things like image previews for icons in modern OSes rather than generic jpg icons).
1) The "partial shift" no longer has a distinct visible mode on the keyboard. iOS has 4 modes for the shift button. 1: The button is off, everything is lowercase, 2: The button is on, the next letter or symbol is uppercase / shift symbol (? vs/), 3: The button is locked on, all letters are uppercase, but symbols are not shifted, 4: The button is partially on, the next letter is uppercase, but symbols will not be shifted. Mode 4 is the mode the button goes into at the beginning of a line or after a period. It was also previously distinguished by a blue highlight around the shift arrow rather than the arrow being filled in. Now there is no visual distinction between modes 4 and 2.
2) Minimalist button icons. For buttons that aren't text, the icons are very minimalist and without previous knowledge give little to no clue about what they do. For example the "share" button is now a simple box with an up arrow. The bookmarks icon in safari is a weird divided rectangle that if you squint just right you could argue looks like an open book.
3) The ".com" button is now hidden behind the "." key for web address entry making is non-discoverable except by accident.
4) Folders only display a 3x3 grid, even on iPads and do not remember your last position (nor does there appear to be an option for that).
5) When you first open the OS, it tells you that spotlight has moved and to now simply swipe down from any home screen. That's good, it's great that the search functionality is available anywhere. What it doesn't tell you is that you don't swipe down from the top (which gives you notification center. You instead swipe from another place on the screen.
6) The keyboard seems slower and less responsive. This may be just my iPad for some reason, but it appears that the keyboard sometimes hesitates on displaying and coming ready when displayed.
7) Videos have a "make full screen" button, but no longer have a "leave full screen" button that doesn't stop the video from playing. The "Done" button remains, but this stops the video. The only way to leave full screen without stopping the video is to pinch the screen.
None of these are show stoppers by any stretch of the imagination, but they are the sorts of "little things" that apple (and steve jobs in particular) are noted for fussing over. For making sure that those little experiences add up to be a better experience than the sum of their parts.
Part of the reason for the resistance is lost institutional knowledge. These are old systems, probably poorly commented and poorly documented. They've been modified and patched a thousand times over to handle corner cases, odd hardware based bugs, new interfaces, new regulations and new laws, as well as mashing with new insurance companies, new plans, old plans, outdated data and new data and 50 states worth of independent regulations. How much money and how much time do you suppose it would take to rewrite that entire 30 year history, including refactoring all of the data such that is accessible back to the beginning, in a modern language, with modern technologies and can guarantee that it is 99.99% exactly the same functionality for all possible input combinations?
For reference, the state of North Carolina recently overhauled their Medicaid billing system. They are months and billions of dollars behind in payments from this change over, and the project was already over due and over budget.
The proper solution is to model what damage a trojan can do, figure out what privileges it would need to do that damage, and make sure that a program lacks those privileges without the user's knowledge.
The problem here is it lacks transparency for the user. Here's the problem you need to solve:
The user wants to get X done on their computer. Every time you prompt the user to validate or confirm something that isn't doing X, you are taking time away from the user. And every time you take time away from the user, you annoy them. And every time you annoy them, you make it less likely that they will pay attention to the prompt that you provide the next time, and the time after that. Eventually you get to the point where the user just hits "OK" on whatever prompt you provide them just so that they can get on with doing their work.
This issue is made worse by the fact that consumer level computer security is different from corporate / server level security. A user owns all their files, and they want their applications to use their files. That a malicious application can't get root privileges and install a rogue ftp server is beside the point because the user doesn't care about that, they care about the files that any app running with the user's permissions can (by design and by necessity) access.
Sure android tried to solve this with their "confirm permissions on download" but seriously, have you ever read through the list of permissions some apps ask for? What user is going to even understand half of those? Even worse are the fact that the descriptions are nearly useless, you get crap like "this permission gives the app the ability to read your location, but it could also be used to track you, your kids and your little dog too". They're useless descriptions that essentially tell the user nothing about WHY the application wants those permissions, which is the important information.
They can enter into that contract, if and only if it's a valid contract, which requires consideration. A person posting a comment with an EULA attached to it doesn't work.
1) There is no opportunity to decline the contract before agreeing to it. 2) The comment being requested and viewed by the viewer is not owned by the poster, but instead by sourceforge. The poster is not providing any service or consideration, and therefore is in no position to bind people to contracts.
Right, but you aren't the one providing the comment, source forge is. They are redistributing your work, with your permission as expressed in the terms and conditions on this site. Similarly, the viewers of this site are bound by the terms and conditions of sourceforge, not you.
Okay, I'm having trouble getting past the castration/child removal thing.
Thats OK. I figured you would, most people reasonably would. Like I said, I don't like government intervention, so when the government has to get involved, it should be a horrible experience, so that people will do everything in their power to make it so the government won't be involved.
You are castrating/taking away kids without proof of harm. This violates innocent until proven guilty.
Bringing a child into this world you can not financially support is proof of harm. Take them to court if you want, but seriously, this is probably the only part of being a parent we can reasonably quantify. We should use that to our advantage.
You are giving the government permission to determine what kind of people can and cannot have kids. Do you really need me to go into why this is a slippery slope?
No, I'm well aware of the slippery slope, as I said, I don't relish the thought, but we're sliding down other slopes that are less effective at solving the problem and more dangerous to our rights.
Cast aside ideological objections for a moment. As a practical matter, this will force the people you are trying to help into hiding their kids from the government. That means no health care, no school, etc. They will be worse off than they were before.
They already have no healthcare or schooling. Besides, as I said, if you're bringing a child into this world unable to support them, you're a criminal, we don't stop pursuing criminals just because they go into hiding and try and make it more difficult to stop them.
Your "solution" is completely untenable politically. Never in a million years will people sign on to this... why pursue it?
To force people to pay attention and shape up on their own. Gun rights activists police their own very carefully because the threat of government stepping in for them is very real. Same with the ESRB. Society should view reproducing when you can't support kids the same way. Something to be policed carefully because the government solution is worse.
The government should help lift people out of poverty - not eradicate it at any cost.
And what better way to life them out of poverty than remove them from it at birth?
People should always be able to reject government intervention.
They can reject government intervention. Don't become a child abuser and the government doesn't intervene.
I mean, you could end poverty by killing all of the poor people. But just because it is effective doesn't make it the right course of action.
Well, abusing yourself isn't a crime, so killing poor people doesn't make sense, nor does it acknowledge that those people can change their lot in life. But as you said, kids are different.
Nope. I didn't. Nothing I can say will convince you of that I'm sure. But I did come from a background where I was told no one will make my life easier. My life is my responsibility and if I want it to get better, no one else will make that happen except me.
As far as janitorial work, goes, monster.com seems to show that janitorial work across the country, entry level, not senior/management level, brings in between 20-30k/ year depending on where you live (20k being places like alabama, louisiana, and 30K being places like california, new york).
Now, that isn't much to be sure, but for reference that's ~$9.50/hour on the low end and ~$14.50/hour. It's better than flipping burgers and serving food, and when you consider the median incomes in the country, its as good or better than the median for people with a highschool diploma. For a single person it's more than enough to support yourself and put a little bit away. Get a roommate to split the costs of living and you will live quite comfortably if you manage your money right.
Lower your cost of living? Below ghetto poverty conditions? I don't think you are being realistic.
Rent / 2 Now you are just being silly. Even if I agreed that it was a good idea for a government to take away people's children as a precautionary measure, it is politically impossible. I can hear the "cultural genocide" claims right now.
Why am I being silly? What's silly about taking a child out of a neglectful situation? Why is neglecting your child somehow less bad if you do it because you're poor rather than lazy? As far as politically impossible, america needs to get over feel good bullshit and get back to doing the practical thing. The one measure that we can get hard numbers on when it comes to being a parent is being able to afford to be a parent. Why then shouldn't we as a society take the practical approach to preventing poverty?
I know it doesn't sound like it, but I'm the last person in the world who wants more government programs and intervention, and I certainly don't relish the thought of the government determining who can be a parent. But if you are going to tell me that it's the government's job to help eliminate poverty, then we need to go all the way, none of this pussy footing around bullshit. We will stop poverty by not making more poor people. And don't give me this bullshit about reproductive rights. You have a right to reproduce if and only if you can provide for your offspring. Otherwise you are committing CHILD ABUSE. Starving your child because you are poor is no morally better than starving your child because you are a psychopath.
You can't force other people to do what you want? Each of those people also has a support system which is different from yours, and they would have to do the same.
If they aren't improving their lives, then certainly one would think they would want to move on too. Again it comes down to choices, if your support system is any good, it will help you, not hold you in the same place. But if you choose to make your support system a system of people that aren't helping you make your situation better and vice versa, that is your choice.
Whole families DO leave, but it's not as easy as you seem to think it is to just pick up and leave.
And living in abject poverty, wondering if you'll be able to afford food next month is easier? Of course it isn't easy but we're talking about your life here. What is your life worth to you? Why isn't your life, why isn't the life of your children worth that hardship? You're just making excuses again.
Well, it's certainly not yours. Generally, the guardianship of the child would become whoever is the guardian of the mother. So if a 14-year-old has a kid, the mother of the 14-year-old becomes its guardian.
Still doesn't help with the poverty situation.
If the mother can't afford to care for the kid, then she doesn't get the child either. Don't you understand? The reason these people remain poor is we allow them to continue to choose to be poor AND to add more poor people to the mix. If 14 year old Jane has a kid because she's raised in a crappy home and her mom Paula can't afford to raise her own kid let alone Jane's then you get the kid out of there. A child shouldn't have to choose between their own family and a family that can support them. They should be able to get both. And if they can't, then the family who can't support them is abusing that child. Surely you agree that children should be removed from those that abuse and neglect them, so why is this any different?.
Right, so EVERYONE has to deal with favoritism. We are all equal when we have to deal with general favoritism. However, blacks have the ADDITIONAL burden of racism. In aggregate, this is going to serve as an obstacle, even if certain individuals can overcome it.
And this is where you and I very much disagree. I find that on the whole, racism is limited to very select and specific instances and individuals. That being the case why would you think that these sel
They do this. Their friends and family are also dirt-poor and can't really help with the childcare. I think that you'll find a large number of single moms living with their single mom. Poor-as-dirt mom doesn't exactly have a nest egg herself.
You don't need a nest egg, you need something to lower your cost of living so that you can build a nest egg.
No. A lot of them are teenage mothers. There are exceptions, but teenage pregnancy is largely a problem with parenting. A teenage girl is simply not equipped to be thrown out into the world. Having a baby at 14 or 16 severely crimps your career choices.
Take away the child. Teenage pregnancy has always been a problem, but years ago, the child was taken away and adopted, either by family or by strangers. These days we let teenage girls ruin their lives and then wonder why they live in poverty. Look, I know it sounds cruel, but if a mother isn't equipped to be raising her child, then she is abusing that child and the child needs to be taken out of that situation.
I'm asking you to feel sorry for the kid. Or at least understand that a kid with little or no parenting is not going to have as good a chance at life as an adult.
Which is why I say take these kids away. Get them into a home where they have a chance. Let's stop pretending that if we throw money or laws at this that it will change the fact that as you said, these people aren't equipped to be parents.
That's great and even inspirational, but not statistically likely. A lot of people would not be able to handle that situation - simply not equipped. Expecting everyone to be able to do that is like expecting everyone to be proficient at guitar. Also, you make no mention of her background. Someone with a good background might be better equipped to pull themselves out of a hole than someone who has never been exposed to the "good life".
I said broken home, but if you would like to know what that means, try an abusive alcoholic father, who didn't want a girl in the first place and made her sleep on a cot in the kitchen because girls didn't deserve to have their own rooms.
And really what is so remarkable about that story that no one else could accomplish? I'm not asking people to become overnight millionaires, but simply moving from unable to feed yourself to self supportive should not be this difficult.
I don't expect everyone to become paralegals. I do expect them to better themselves, and if they CHOOSE to bring offspring into this world, set those children up for a chance to be better.
That is simply not true. That is a platitude. Lots of people fail. Bad luck, no brains, bad health... lots of reasons. Not everyone is equipped to succeed at making money. Making money is just like any other endeavor. I can practice as much as I like - I'll never play ball professionally or play an instrument in a major orchestra.
Making lots of money isn't required to make you more successful. You don't have to play ball professionally and you don't have to play in a major orchestra, and you don't have to be CEO of a company. When you are on the bottom rung of society, ANYTHING is an improvement, so when you're sitting there wallowing in the same filth that your grandparents, and your parents before you wallowed in, the only realistic explanation is that you have allowed yourself to fail.
Maybe at a Tony Robbins event, but not in the real world. Be careful with absolutes.
And it is with this defeatist attitude that people are defeated. Look the real world is harsh to everyone, some people get more second chances than others, but everyone can get somewhere in life if they work at it. Not try, but actually do. Does it mean you might have to make sacrifices? Sure, but name for me a single success story you've heard where the protagonist hasn't had to make a sacrifice. They don't exist. It's no coincidence that every success story you hear follows the same basic pattern, someone crawling hand over fist to make the
That's easy for you to say if your man hasn't run out on you and he was the breadwinner while you stayed home with the kids.
Move in with friends, family or co-workers. No one has to do this on their own. Again, we're talking about choices, and yes, you can't control people but don't you think its odd that a substantial number of children are being raised in single family homes? Do you really think that all of these people were just abandoned by their spouse with the kids? That there are that many people who are psychotic enough to do that? I think its choices. If you put yourself into a bad relationship, you chose that. If you have kids with someone who is untrustworthy, you chose that. And when they do leave you, if you don't move or rearrange your life to make it so that you can succeed while caring for your kids, those are again choices you make. There are always warning signs about these things. It's high time we started taking people to task for ignoring them. Yes I feel sorry for the kid, that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for you too.
Hows this for a true story. Teenage girl from a broken home followed her husband in the military overseas. Her husband was abusive, and a drug addict, and then abandoned her with a toddler. She continued to make mistakes, got in with a bad crowd and had another child. Then she realized what the hell she was doing, and turned her life around. She got her ass back to the states, and moved in with her ex's parents. She busted her ass, worked many jobs to the point where the doctors told her she needed to cut back or she would kill herself. She put herself in school, made friends with a co-worker and moved into an apartment with said co-worker. She never stopped, always looked for that next rung to grab. She's now a paralegal and both kids are grown up and healthy.
The point is, I've seen a lot of varied situations. But I have never once in my life, seen a situation that could not be improved by choosing to do things a little differently. Perhaps such situations exist, in fact, I'm sure they do. But to say that it's so rampant that so many people across the country for multiple generations can't overcome it? That I just don't believe.
You are also ignoring the fact that people DO try just as hard as you did, but fail.
The only people that fail are those that give up. Again, you're suggesting that so many people around the country are making good decisions and something is just keeping them down. I don't buy it. Find me your worst sob story, and I can find things that you can change to make it better.
Sometimes trying isn't enough. Have you ever considered that you may be a bit lucky? That some of your choices were fortunate as well as smart?
Fortune and luck are only small parts, and often what seems like luck is just making the right decision. I mentioned before my fiance was disabled. She can't work jobs that are physically taxing. She also has no degree, so for the most part, physically taxing jobs (serving, retail etc) are all that's available to her. The problem was though, we kept making the wrong choice. For 2 years all we did was look into those jobs, because that's what she had in the past. Then we decided instead to try a different tack, and on the first hit landed a job that not only pays better than all of the previous jobs, but is less physically demanding and more her style. It's not luck, it's different choices.
That you were born with an IQ that enabled you to make good choices?
Even the smallest child knows that if what they are trying doesn't work, that they need to try something else.
That your parents didn't abuse alcohol or drugs while you were in the womb?
How long should one be allowed to use the failings of their parents as the reason they fail?
That you didn't like in an area contaminated by lead, mercury or other chemicals?
And how many of the people currently living in poverty can lay claim to all of that? As I said, I
No you can't... A job at Denny's as a bus boy will simply not pay as much as a job at "Generous Motors" did in the ol' days, despite the educational requirements being the same.
A job at Denny's isn't a job at GM either. People got into GM to make a career. Very few people, even those poor and down and out look at Denny's as a career. If you don't intend on it being one, it won't be. But if you put yourself on a career path, you will have a career.
One of the custodial guys where I used to work works a day job assembling umbrellas in North Philly for a whopping $9/hour and no benefits. He then commutes out to the 'burbs by bus for 45 minutes to clean the office at the same rate. The man is lucky if he pulls in $28k/year. He doesn't have a car, and he rents a place in a crappy part of town.
And if he sets aside a little bit of money, he can save up, and in the mean time he's building experience. As long as he pays attention, he will move up in society. But if he spends all his paychecks on toys, and just does enough to keep his job, of course he will never move up. You don't move up by doing the same thing you've always done.
You also don't get anywhere in life if you settle for the status quo. If he's not happy with the jobs he has and money he earns, he should always be on the look out for something better, and take it when it comes. During the time that I worked part time (with no benefits I might add) I spent some time every day looking at other openings out there. If one came up, I put my name in. Did I always get a call? No of course not, but I was guaranteed to not get a call if I didn't put my name in in the first place.
You are a success story, and that's great. Statistically, though, you are probably in the minority.
The only reason that's so is because most people don't try. You don't get born into management, you work your way there. I didn't do anything remarkable or amazing to get where I am, I just kept pushing forward. That whole saying, "you make your own success" is perfectly true. Opportunities don't come knocking, you get off your ass and find them.
Even you have the distinct advantage of not having to grow up in the ghetto. You were surrounded by role models who showed you what could be.
I was also surrounded by people who showed me what I could be if I screwed up. Ultimately parenting and role models play a large part sure, but at some point, you as a person have to look around you, see the people who are miserable and decide you don't want that for your life, and then do everything you can to avoid their mistakes. I didn't learn my financial management from my parents, they weren't any good at it. What I did do was see that they weren't good at it, and vowed not to be like that, and then sought knowledge elsewhere.
At some point you have to stop blaming everyone else and take charge of your own life. If where you are, or who you associate with or what you do isn't working, then change it. Yeah, working denny's in a dead end town living out of a hole in the wall shit box sucks, so get out of the dead end town. What do you have to lose? Every town has a denny's and shit hole boxes, so move somewhere else, try for new and different opportunities. If denny's isn't paying you enough, ask for a raise or look for another job. It's not like your Denny's job is some prize that you couldn't get again. IF hanging out with the druggies is bringing you down, stop hanging out with them.
You (presumably) did not have to support kids while making $8/hr.
No, I didn't, but I did support an out of work, disabled fiance. But that, and kids are choices. No one forces you to have kids, and no one forced me to get engaged, but if that is a choice you make, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice.
Look, if you're pulling $8/hr part time while trying to support a kid on your own, I don't feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for your kids, but obviously you're messing up
Higher education here is really easy to get. The problem is this belief that you need to go to college to succeed. Also there's this unfortunate belief that going to college means you need to go to Harvard. When I was being pushed into college, I looked into the bigger schools because the idea of going to a small school, or god forbid a community college, was unthinkable. If I wanted to succeed I needed a degree from a college with prestige. In the end, I wasted 3 years pursuing that degree before I realized it was a waste of money and dropped out. I then went a got myself a nice middle class job, and now I take classes at various higher ed places not to get a degree and get a better job, but to actually learn things that interest me. And even better I can pay for it in cash because I worked my way into a job that gives me that sort of income. And as I continue to work my way up the ladder, when I reach a position where I "need" a degree, they will pay for it.
If you want to go to college in this country you can. And almost without fail you can do it without paying for it yourself. Someone will always pay for it, you just have to work for it.
This belief that somehow college is unattainable in the US is false. In the absolute worst case scenario (too rich to qualify for aid, assistance and other programs, too poor to get parents to pay, too lazy to fill out scholarship apps, too unemployed to get payed by your company, and too "privileged" to qualify for minority scholarships) there are multitudes of banks all willing to lend you all sorts of money at reasonable interest rates that you don't need to pay back until you graduate. And you might say that isn't a solution because then you have to pay back the loans, but I say if getting your degree didn't enable you to pay back those loans, then it was a lousy investment.
As you say, the conditions are not the same. In the 50s you could find a good paying factory job and be a good hard-working middle-class family. You could probably pay for your kids to go to college.
You can do that today too. The problem is, we've changed what we perceive as necessary. In the 50s, chances were you shared a room with your siblings, your house had one bathroom, your family had one car. There was one TV, food was made at home rather than eaten out, and things weren't bought new every 2-3 years. Also, most people owned their homes for longer than the 6-8 years that people these days do, when you got too much shit, you didn't move into a bigger house, you sold some stuff.
It's not so these days. Your average house has 2 TVs, 2 cars, a minimum of 2 computers, gameboys for each of the kids, a Wii and an Xbox 360. The home audio system is a brand new surround sound system and oh by the way, all those cars, tvs and toys were bought on credit.
Middle class living today doesn't correlate with middle class wages. And the problem isn't the wages, its the people trying to live above and beyond their means.
Just try coming out of the ghetto with no degree and see how far you get in life today - no matter what race you are.
I didn't come out of the ghetto, but I did come out of a lower class family (one working parent, the other sunk a lot of money into a failed business). I have no college degree (dropped out) and in 3 years I've gone from bringing in $8/hr part time to a full time middle class income. It really isn't difficult, it just takes proper budgeting, proper living and dedication to your job and task at hand.
Also, there ARE a lot of blacks in the US who are in the middle class now - been to Harlem lately? It's a multi-million dollar neighborhood these days. Very expensive and still very black. The black middle class is growing very, very quickly. This is, I believe, because institutionalized racism is finally on the wane.
And yet there are so many who aren't. Racism has been on the wane for quite some time now, the problem is applying one self to things. Bill Cosby goes around the country talking about this, and he's right. There are some great videos of his speeches up on line, but it boils down to one main point, no one is holding anyone down these days except themselves.
Saying that video games are cheap entertainment compared to drugs is akin to saying that walking through downtown harlem with a sign that says "fuck black people" is smarter than walking through downtown harlem with a sign the says "fuck niggers". Either way it's a stupid choice.
Point of order. There is plenty of money to go to college. You can't even graduate highschool before they start sending you letters about scholarships, loans, grants, easy money, not so easy money and credit cards.
Everyone in this country can afford to go to college in some fashion or another. The problem is, not everyone should go to college, and that is something that needs to be corrected.
Depends on who you're talking to. What gets lost in these discussions is that many of the white (and other ethnicity) people that you see today were not slave owners but rather descendants of immigrants, people who came here with little or nothing. And certainly relatively recently. Many people you see today are only 3rd generation americans, if that, and those immigrant ancestors certainly did not come to a land of sunshine and lolipops. They came to a land of uncertainty, hatred, discrimination, poverty and hard work. But these people managed to rise in just 3 generations and quite successfully. Now of course YMMV and things do not always translate from one group to another perfectly. But one would expect to see a rise at least equivalent to that of most second generation americans.
Video games are a cheap form of entertainment? On what planet? The minimum price for a console is $250. Minimum for a portable $100. Games average between $40-60 a pop. Extra controllers range from $20 for generic to $50 for name brand. So let's go with a basic, one system, one game and an extra controller. $250+50+30 = $330. I hardly call that cheap entertainment, when a paperback book is $8, and a library card is free.
Incidentally, $330 is more than 6 hours of community college and text books around here.
Right, and the reason you pay for software is so that you don't have to rely on your people to keep the documentation, keep it up to date and know where it is. And again, it's about multiple points of contact. You can have all the documentation in the world, but if only one guy in your company knows where it is, or knows the password to it, or even knows where in the documentation to look for the answer, it's just as bad as having no documentation.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's not true. You should look up ICD 9 codes and its replacement ICD 10. Many (most?) insurance plans require your provider to submit these codes when billing for treatments.
Just like Google is currently Samsung's bitch?
Most businesses in the US maintain a database of their customers. At it's simplest form, it's the ledger, which tracks payments in (and what they were for) and payments out (and what they were for). Beyond that, most service businesses are going to maintain records of what their employees were doing on any given day, including where they went and for how long and what the job was.
Here's a better one for you that bit me in the ass:
crontab has two options next to each other on the (qwerty) keyboard. "-e" opens the current crontab file for editing. Care to guess what "-r" does? In the infinite wisdom of the developers, it removes the current crontab file. No confirmation, no backup, just delete. They have added a new option "-i" which asks for confirmation before deleting the file, of course that doesn't actually solve the mis-type problem.
So basically, type some text that I want to find into spotlight? I'm pretty sure that was example #1 in TFA.
There is an option to set the font to bold, which does dramatically improve the thin fonts (though some of the larger text, like the lock screen clock looks odd), it's under the accessibility settings. There's also an increase contrast option (which is distinct from the invert colors option) though I haven't found where that takes effect.
There are a number of UX issues with iOS 7 that I'm frankly quite surprised made it through testing or that anyone thought these were good ideas. Ignoring the theme itself (lower definition icons means less context, especially with hi res screens, that context would have been very usable it's the whole reason we do things like image previews for icons in modern OSes rather than generic jpg icons).
1) The "partial shift" no longer has a distinct visible mode on the keyboard. iOS has 4 modes for the shift button. 1: The button is off, everything is lowercase, 2: The button is on, the next letter or symbol is uppercase / shift symbol (? vs /), 3: The button is locked on, all letters are uppercase, but symbols are not shifted, 4: The button is partially on, the next letter is uppercase, but symbols will not be shifted. Mode 4 is the mode the button goes into at the beginning of a line or after a period. It was also previously distinguished by a blue highlight around the shift arrow rather than the arrow being filled in. Now there is no visual distinction between modes 4 and 2.
2) Minimalist button icons. For buttons that aren't text, the icons are very minimalist and without previous knowledge give little to no clue about what they do. For example the "share" button is now a simple box with an up arrow. The bookmarks icon in safari is a weird divided rectangle that if you squint just right you could argue looks like an open book.
3) The ".com" button is now hidden behind the "." key for web address entry making is non-discoverable except by accident.
4) Folders only display a 3x3 grid, even on iPads and do not remember your last position (nor does there appear to be an option for that).
5) When you first open the OS, it tells you that spotlight has moved and to now simply swipe down from any home screen. That's good, it's great that the search functionality is available anywhere. What it doesn't tell you is that you don't swipe down from the top (which gives you notification center. You instead swipe from another place on the screen.
6) The keyboard seems slower and less responsive. This may be just my iPad for some reason, but it appears that the keyboard sometimes hesitates on displaying and coming ready when displayed.
7) Videos have a "make full screen" button, but no longer have a "leave full screen" button that doesn't stop the video from playing. The "Done" button remains, but this stops the video. The only way to leave full screen without stopping the video is to pinch the screen.
None of these are show stoppers by any stretch of the imagination, but they are the sorts of "little things" that apple (and steve jobs in particular) are noted for fussing over. For making sure that those little experiences add up to be a better experience than the sum of their parts.
Part of the reason for the resistance is lost institutional knowledge. These are old systems, probably poorly commented and poorly documented. They've been modified and patched a thousand times over to handle corner cases, odd hardware based bugs, new interfaces, new regulations and new laws, as well as mashing with new insurance companies, new plans, old plans, outdated data and new data and 50 states worth of independent regulations. How much money and how much time do you suppose it would take to rewrite that entire 30 year history, including refactoring all of the data such that is accessible back to the beginning, in a modern language, with modern technologies and can guarantee that it is 99.99% exactly the same functionality for all possible input combinations?
For reference, the state of North Carolina recently overhauled their Medicaid billing system. They are months and billions of dollars behind in payments from this change over, and the project was already over due and over budget.
The problem here is it lacks transparency for the user. Here's the problem you need to solve:
The user wants to get X done on their computer. Every time you prompt the user to validate or confirm something that isn't doing X, you are taking time away from the user. And every time you take time away from the user, you annoy them. And every time you annoy them, you make it less likely that they will pay attention to the prompt that you provide the next time, and the time after that. Eventually you get to the point where the user just hits "OK" on whatever prompt you provide them just so that they can get on with doing their work.
This issue is made worse by the fact that consumer level computer security is different from corporate / server level security. A user owns all their files, and they want their applications to use their files. That a malicious application can't get root privileges and install a rogue ftp server is beside the point because the user doesn't care about that, they care about the files that any app running with the user's permissions can (by design and by necessity) access.
Sure android tried to solve this with their "confirm permissions on download" but seriously, have you ever read through the list of permissions some apps ask for? What user is going to even understand half of those? Even worse are the fact that the descriptions are nearly useless, you get crap like "this permission gives the app the ability to read your location, but it could also be used to track you, your kids and your little dog too". They're useless descriptions that essentially tell the user nothing about WHY the application wants those permissions, which is the important information.
Yes, actually: http://pythonforios.com/
They can enter into that contract, if and only if it's a valid contract, which requires consideration. A person posting a comment with an EULA attached to it doesn't work.
1) There is no opportunity to decline the contract before agreeing to it.
2) The comment being requested and viewed by the viewer is not owned by the poster, but instead by sourceforge. The poster is not providing any service or consideration, and therefore is in no position to bind people to contracts.
Right, but you aren't the one providing the comment, source forge is. They are redistributing your work, with your permission as expressed in the terms and conditions on this site. Similarly, the viewers of this site are bound by the terms and conditions of sourceforge, not you.
Okay, I'm having trouble getting past the castration/child removal thing.
Thats OK. I figured you would, most people reasonably would. Like I said, I don't like government intervention, so when the government has to get involved, it should be a horrible experience, so that people will do everything in their power to make it so the government won't be involved.
You are castrating/taking away kids without proof of harm. This violates innocent until proven guilty.
Bringing a child into this world you can not financially support is proof of harm. Take them to court if you want, but seriously, this is probably the only part of being a parent we can reasonably quantify. We should use that to our advantage.
You are giving the government permission to determine what kind of people can and cannot have kids. Do you really need me to go into why this is a slippery slope?
No, I'm well aware of the slippery slope, as I said, I don't relish the thought, but we're sliding down other slopes that are less effective at solving the problem and more dangerous to our rights.
Cast aside ideological objections for a moment. As a practical matter, this will force the people you are trying to help into hiding their kids from the government. That means no health care, no school, etc. They will be worse off than they were before.
They already have no healthcare or schooling. Besides, as I said, if you're bringing a child into this world unable to support them, you're a criminal, we don't stop pursuing criminals just because they go into hiding and try and make it more difficult to stop them.
Your "solution" is completely untenable politically. Never in a million years will people sign on to this... why pursue it?
To force people to pay attention and shape up on their own. Gun rights activists police their own very carefully because the threat of government stepping in for them is very real. Same with the ESRB. Society should view reproducing when you can't support kids the same way. Something to be policed carefully because the government solution is worse.
The government should help lift people out of poverty - not eradicate it at any cost.
And what better way to life them out of poverty than remove them from it at birth?
People should always be able to reject government intervention.
They can reject government intervention. Don't become a child abuser and the government doesn't intervene.
I mean, you could end poverty by killing all of the poor people. But just because it is effective doesn't make it the right course of action.
Well, abusing yourself isn't a crime, so killing poor people doesn't make sense, nor does it acknowledge that those people can change their lot in life. But as you said, kids are different.
Nope. I didn't. Nothing I can say will convince you of that I'm sure. But I did come from a background where I was told no one will make my life easier. My life is my responsibility and if I want it to get better, no one else will make that happen except me.
As far as janitorial work, goes, monster.com seems to show that janitorial work across the country, entry level, not senior/management level, brings in between 20-30k/ year depending on where you live (20k being places like alabama, louisiana, and 30K being places like california, new york).
Now, that isn't much to be sure, but for reference that's ~$9.50/hour on the low end and ~$14.50/hour. It's better than flipping burgers and serving food, and when you consider the median incomes in the country, its as good or better than the median for people with a highschool diploma. For a single person it's more than enough to support yourself and put a little bit away. Get a roommate to split the costs of living and you will live quite comfortably if you manage your money right.
Lower your cost of living? Below ghetto poverty conditions? I don't think you are being realistic.
Rent / 2 Now you are just being silly. Even if I agreed that it was a good idea for a government to take away people's children as a precautionary measure, it is politically impossible. I can hear the "cultural genocide" claims right now.
Why am I being silly? What's silly about taking a child out of a neglectful situation? Why is neglecting your child somehow less bad if you do it because you're poor rather than lazy? As far as politically impossible, america needs to get over feel good bullshit and get back to doing the practical thing. The one measure that we can get hard numbers on when it comes to being a parent is being able to afford to be a parent. Why then shouldn't we as a society take the practical approach to preventing poverty?
I know it doesn't sound like it, but I'm the last person in the world who wants more government programs and intervention, and I certainly don't relish the thought of the government determining who can be a parent. But if you are going to tell me that it's the government's job to help eliminate poverty, then we need to go all the way, none of this pussy footing around bullshit. We will stop poverty by not making more poor people. And don't give me this bullshit about reproductive rights. You have a right to reproduce if and only if you can provide for your offspring. Otherwise you are committing CHILD ABUSE. Starving your child because you are poor is no morally better than starving your child because you are a psychopath.
You can't force other people to do what you want? Each of those people also has a support system which is different from yours, and they would have to do the same.
If they aren't improving their lives, then certainly one would think they would want to move on too. Again it comes down to choices, if your support system is any good, it will help you, not hold you in the same place. But if you choose to make your support system a system of people that aren't helping you make your situation better and vice versa, that is your choice.
Whole families DO leave, but it's not as easy as you seem to think it is to just pick up and leave.
And living in abject poverty, wondering if you'll be able to afford food next month is easier? Of course it isn't easy but we're talking about your life here. What is your life worth to you? Why isn't your life, why isn't the life of your children worth that hardship? You're just making excuses again.
Well, it's certainly not yours. Generally, the guardianship of the child would become whoever is the guardian of the mother. So if a 14-year-old has a kid, the mother of the 14-year-old becomes its guardian.
Still doesn't help with the poverty situation.
If the mother can't afford to care for the kid, then she doesn't get the child either. Don't you understand? The reason these people remain poor is we allow them to continue to choose to be poor AND to add more poor people to the mix. If 14 year old Jane has a kid because she's raised in a crappy home and her mom Paula can't afford to raise her own kid let alone Jane's then you get the kid out of there. A child shouldn't have to choose between their own family and a family that can support them. They should be able to get both. And if they can't, then the family who can't support them is abusing that child. Surely you agree that children should be removed from those that abuse and neglect them, so why is this any different?.
Right, so EVERYONE has to deal with favoritism. We are all equal when we have to deal with general favoritism. However, blacks have the ADDITIONAL burden of racism. In aggregate, this is going to serve as an obstacle, even if certain individuals can overcome it.
And this is where you and I very much disagree. I find that on the whole, racism is limited to very select and specific instances and individuals. That being the case why would you think that these sel
They do this. Their friends and family are also dirt-poor and can't really help with the childcare. I think that you'll find a large number of single moms living with their single mom. Poor-as-dirt mom doesn't exactly have a nest egg herself.
You don't need a nest egg, you need something to lower your cost of living so that you can build a nest egg.
No. A lot of them are teenage mothers. There are exceptions, but teenage pregnancy is largely a problem with parenting. A teenage girl is simply not equipped to be thrown out into the world. Having a baby at 14 or 16 severely crimps your career choices.
Take away the child. Teenage pregnancy has always been a problem, but years ago, the child was taken away and adopted, either by family or by strangers. These days we let teenage girls ruin their lives and then wonder why they live in poverty. Look, I know it sounds cruel, but if a mother isn't equipped to be raising her child, then she is abusing that child and the child needs to be taken out of that situation.
I'm asking you to feel sorry for the kid. Or at least understand that a kid with little or no parenting is not going to have as good a chance at life as an adult.
Which is why I say take these kids away. Get them into a home where they have a chance. Let's stop pretending that if we throw money or laws at this that it will change the fact that as you said, these people aren't equipped to be parents.
That's great and even inspirational, but not statistically likely. A lot of people would not be able to handle that situation - simply not equipped. Expecting everyone to be able to do that is like expecting everyone to be proficient at guitar. Also, you make no mention of her background. Someone with a good background might be better equipped to pull themselves out of a hole than someone who has never been exposed to the "good life".
I said broken home, but if you would like to know what that means, try an abusive alcoholic father, who didn't want a girl in the first place and made her sleep on a cot in the kitchen because girls didn't deserve to have their own rooms.
And really what is so remarkable about that story that no one else could accomplish? I'm not asking people to become overnight millionaires, but simply moving from unable to feed yourself to self supportive should not be this difficult.
I don't expect everyone to become paralegals. I do expect them to better themselves, and if they CHOOSE to bring offspring into this world, set those children up for a chance to be better.
That is simply not true. That is a platitude. Lots of people fail. Bad luck, no brains, bad health... lots of reasons. Not everyone is equipped to succeed at making money. Making money is just like any other endeavor. I can practice as much as I like - I'll never play ball professionally or play an instrument in a major orchestra.
Making lots of money isn't required to make you more successful. You don't have to play ball professionally and you don't have to play in a major orchestra, and you don't have to be CEO of a company. When you are on the bottom rung of society, ANYTHING is an improvement, so when you're sitting there wallowing in the same filth that your grandparents, and your parents before you wallowed in, the only realistic explanation is that you have allowed yourself to fail.
Maybe at a Tony Robbins event, but not in the real world. Be careful with absolutes.
And it is with this defeatist attitude that people are defeated. Look the real world is harsh to everyone, some people get more second chances than others, but everyone can get somewhere in life if they work at it. Not try, but actually do. Does it mean you might have to make sacrifices? Sure, but name for me a single success story you've heard where the protagonist hasn't had to make a sacrifice. They don't exist. It's no coincidence that every success story you hear follows the same basic pattern, someone crawling hand over fist to make the
That's easy for you to say if your man hasn't run out on you and he was the breadwinner while you stayed home with the kids.
Move in with friends, family or co-workers. No one has to do this on their own. Again, we're talking about choices, and yes, you can't control people but don't you think its odd that a substantial number of children are being raised in single family homes? Do you really think that all of these people were just abandoned by their spouse with the kids? That there are that many people who are psychotic enough to do that? I think its choices. If you put yourself into a bad relationship, you chose that. If you have kids with someone who is untrustworthy, you chose that. And when they do leave you, if you don't move or rearrange your life to make it so that you can succeed while caring for your kids, those are again choices you make. There are always warning signs about these things. It's high time we started taking people to task for ignoring them. Yes I feel sorry for the kid, that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for you too.
Hows this for a true story. Teenage girl from a broken home followed her husband in the military overseas. Her husband was abusive, and a drug addict, and then abandoned her with a toddler. She continued to make mistakes, got in with a bad crowd and had another child. Then she realized what the hell she was doing, and turned her life around. She got her ass back to the states, and moved in with her ex's parents. She busted her ass, worked many jobs to the point where the doctors told her she needed to cut back or she would kill herself. She put herself in school, made friends with a co-worker and moved into an apartment with said co-worker. She never stopped, always looked for that next rung to grab. She's now a paralegal and both kids are grown up and healthy.
The point is, I've seen a lot of varied situations. But I have never once in my life, seen a situation that could not be improved by choosing to do things a little differently. Perhaps such situations exist, in fact, I'm sure they do. But to say that it's so rampant that so many people across the country for multiple generations can't overcome it? That I just don't believe.
You are also ignoring the fact that people DO try just as hard as you did, but fail.
The only people that fail are those that give up. Again, you're suggesting that so many people around the country are making good decisions and something is just keeping them down. I don't buy it. Find me your worst sob story, and I can find things that you can change to make it better.
Sometimes trying isn't enough. Have you ever considered that you may be a bit lucky? That some of your choices were fortunate as well as smart?
Fortune and luck are only small parts, and often what seems like luck is just making the right decision. I mentioned before my fiance was disabled. She can't work jobs that are physically taxing. She also has no degree, so for the most part, physically taxing jobs (serving, retail etc) are all that's available to her. The problem was though, we kept making the wrong choice. For 2 years all we did was look into those jobs, because that's what she had in the past. Then we decided instead to try a different tack, and on the first hit landed a job that not only pays better than all of the previous jobs, but is less physically demanding and more her style. It's not luck, it's different choices.
That you were born with an IQ that enabled you to make good choices?
Even the smallest child knows that if what they are trying doesn't work, that they need to try something else.
That your parents didn't abuse alcohol or drugs while you were in the womb?
How long should one be allowed to use the failings of their parents as the reason they fail?
That you didn't like in an area contaminated by lead, mercury or other chemicals?
And how many of the people currently living in poverty can lay claim to all of that? As I said, I
No you can't... A job at Denny's as a bus boy will simply not pay as much as a job at "Generous Motors" did in the ol' days, despite the educational requirements being the same.
A job at Denny's isn't a job at GM either. People got into GM to make a career. Very few people, even those poor and down and out look at Denny's as a career. If you don't intend on it being one, it won't be. But if you put yourself on a career path, you will have a career.
One of the custodial guys where I used to work works a day job assembling umbrellas in North Philly for a whopping $9/hour and no benefits. He then commutes out to the 'burbs by bus for 45 minutes to clean the office at the same rate. The man is lucky if he pulls in $28k/year. He doesn't have a car, and he rents a place in a crappy part of town.
And if he sets aside a little bit of money, he can save up, and in the mean time he's building experience. As long as he pays attention, he will move up in society. But if he spends all his paychecks on toys, and just does enough to keep his job, of course he will never move up. You don't move up by doing the same thing you've always done.
You also don't get anywhere in life if you settle for the status quo. If he's not happy with the jobs he has and money he earns, he should always be on the look out for something better, and take it when it comes. During the time that I worked part time (with no benefits I might add) I spent some time every day looking at other openings out there. If one came up, I put my name in. Did I always get a call? No of course not, but I was guaranteed to not get a call if I didn't put my name in in the first place.
You are a success story, and that's great. Statistically, though, you are probably in the minority.
The only reason that's so is because most people don't try. You don't get born into management, you work your way there. I didn't do anything remarkable or amazing to get where I am, I just kept pushing forward. That whole saying, "you make your own success" is perfectly true. Opportunities don't come knocking, you get off your ass and find them.
Even you have the distinct advantage of not having to grow up in the ghetto. You were surrounded by role models who showed you what could be.
I was also surrounded by people who showed me what I could be if I screwed up. Ultimately parenting and role models play a large part sure, but at some point, you as a person have to look around you, see the people who are miserable and decide you don't want that for your life, and then do everything you can to avoid their mistakes. I didn't learn my financial management from my parents, they weren't any good at it. What I did do was see that they weren't good at it, and vowed not to be like that, and then sought knowledge elsewhere.
At some point you have to stop blaming everyone else and take charge of your own life. If where you are, or who you associate with or what you do isn't working, then change it. Yeah, working denny's in a dead end town living out of a hole in the wall shit box sucks, so get out of the dead end town. What do you have to lose? Every town has a denny's and shit hole boxes, so move somewhere else, try for new and different opportunities. If denny's isn't paying you enough, ask for a raise or look for another job. It's not like your Denny's job is some prize that you couldn't get again. IF hanging out with the druggies is bringing you down, stop hanging out with them.
You (presumably) did not have to support kids while making $8/hr.
No, I didn't, but I did support an out of work, disabled fiance. But that, and kids are choices. No one forces you to have kids, and no one forced me to get engaged, but if that is a choice you make, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice.
Look, if you're pulling $8/hr part time while trying to support a kid on your own, I don't feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for your kids, but obviously you're messing up
Higher education here is really easy to get. The problem is this belief that you need to go to college to succeed. Also there's this unfortunate belief that going to college means you need to go to Harvard. When I was being pushed into college, I looked into the bigger schools because the idea of going to a small school, or god forbid a community college, was unthinkable. If I wanted to succeed I needed a degree from a college with prestige. In the end, I wasted 3 years pursuing that degree before I realized it was a waste of money and dropped out. I then went a got myself a nice middle class job, and now I take classes at various higher ed places not to get a degree and get a better job, but to actually learn things that interest me. And even better I can pay for it in cash because I worked my way into a job that gives me that sort of income. And as I continue to work my way up the ladder, when I reach a position where I "need" a degree, they will pay for it.
If you want to go to college in this country you can. And almost without fail you can do it without paying for it yourself. Someone will always pay for it, you just have to work for it.
This belief that somehow college is unattainable in the US is false. In the absolute worst case scenario (too rich to qualify for aid, assistance and other programs, too poor to get parents to pay, too lazy to fill out scholarship apps, too unemployed to get payed by your company, and too "privileged" to qualify for minority scholarships) there are multitudes of banks all willing to lend you all sorts of money at reasonable interest rates that you don't need to pay back until you graduate. And you might say that isn't a solution because then you have to pay back the loans, but I say if getting your degree didn't enable you to pay back those loans, then it was a lousy investment.
As you say, the conditions are not the same. In the 50s you could find a good paying factory job and be a good hard-working middle-class family. You could probably pay for your kids to go to college.
You can do that today too. The problem is, we've changed what we perceive as necessary. In the 50s, chances were you shared a room with your siblings, your house had one bathroom, your family had one car. There was one TV, food was made at home rather than eaten out, and things weren't bought new every 2-3 years. Also, most people owned their homes for longer than the 6-8 years that people these days do, when you got too much shit, you didn't move into a bigger house, you sold some stuff.
It's not so these days. Your average house has 2 TVs, 2 cars, a minimum of 2 computers, gameboys for each of the kids, a Wii and an Xbox 360. The home audio system is a brand new surround sound system and oh by the way, all those cars, tvs and toys were bought on credit.
Middle class living today doesn't correlate with middle class wages. And the problem isn't the wages, its the people trying to live above and beyond their means.
Just try coming out of the ghetto with no degree and see how far you get in life today - no matter what race you are.
I didn't come out of the ghetto, but I did come out of a lower class family (one working parent, the other sunk a lot of money into a failed business). I have no college degree (dropped out) and in 3 years I've gone from bringing in $8/hr part time to a full time middle class income. It really isn't difficult, it just takes proper budgeting, proper living and dedication to your job and task at hand.
Also, there ARE a lot of blacks in the US who are in the middle class now - been to Harlem lately? It's a multi-million dollar neighborhood these days. Very expensive and still very black. The black middle class is growing very, very quickly. This is, I believe, because institutionalized racism is finally on the wane.
And yet there are so many who aren't. Racism has been on the wane for quite some time now, the problem is applying one self to things. Bill Cosby goes around the country talking about this, and he's right. There are some great videos of his speeches up on line, but it boils down to one main point, no one is holding anyone down these days except themselves.
Saying that video games are cheap entertainment compared to drugs is akin to saying that walking through downtown harlem with a sign that says "fuck black people" is smarter than walking through downtown harlem with a sign the says "fuck niggers". Either way it's a stupid choice.
Point of order. There is plenty of money to go to college. You can't even graduate highschool before they start sending you letters about scholarships, loans, grants, easy money, not so easy money and credit cards.
Everyone in this country can afford to go to college in some fashion or another. The problem is, not everyone should go to college, and that is something that needs to be corrected.
Depends on who you're talking to. What gets lost in these discussions is that many of the white (and other ethnicity) people that you see today were not slave owners but rather descendants of immigrants, people who came here with little or nothing. And certainly relatively recently. Many people you see today are only 3rd generation americans, if that, and those immigrant ancestors certainly did not come to a land of sunshine and lolipops. They came to a land of uncertainty, hatred, discrimination, poverty and hard work. But these people managed to rise in just 3 generations and quite successfully. Now of course YMMV and things do not always translate from one group to another perfectly. But one would expect to see a rise at least equivalent to that of most second generation americans.
Video games are a cheap form of entertainment? On what planet? The minimum price for a console is $250. Minimum for a portable $100. Games average between $40-60 a pop. Extra controllers range from $20 for generic to $50 for name brand. So let's go with a basic, one system, one game and an extra controller. $250+50+30 = $330. I hardly call that cheap entertainment, when a paperback book is $8, and a library card is free.
Incidentally, $330 is more than 6 hours of community college and text books around here.
Right, and the reason you pay for software is so that you don't have to rely on your people to keep the documentation, keep it up to date and know where it is. And again, it's about multiple points of contact. You can have all the documentation in the world, but if only one guy in your company knows where it is, or knows the password to it, or even knows where in the documentation to look for the answer, it's just as bad as having no documentation.