I said that it had the potential, but I haven't seen anything solid from Obama's admin that would go the right way for that. His proposals seem to vague to really support the whole single payer setup that would help that happen. Specifically, if HMOs are allowed to survive and do things like deny preventative treatment or not pay for annual checkups for everybody, I don't see it happening.
To your point on supply, we can fill the gap somewhat with PAs (I don't like that much, but whatever), who take about 3 years to train. We can shore up some of the GP with assistants and expand the number of MDs being graduated (AFAIK, the AMA limits the supply artificially) for the long term
that's awful. I'd pitch the idea to management with something about how much time is wasted due to crap hardware and if they don't go for it, just smile and collect a paycheck.
It sets a point below which you can't hire an American. It sets a bar where anyone who is incapable of producing a minimum output is considered useless and it is better to stick em on the government teat forever because they won't ever get a chance to grab the bottom rung and work their way up.
That assumes that pay correlates to value produced. It doesn't: instead, pay is based on supply/demand. Without minimum wage, crap jobs would pay way less and the owners would just pocket the difference.
But if you really want to understand why raising the minimum wage is such an important political issue all you need to know is that most union contracts are keyed to the minimum wage.
I'm ok with raising the minimum wage to what it was 10 years ago.
If a company paid you exactly what you produce for the company, the company would be losing money in Soc. Sec. alone.
Who said the proportion has to be 100%? Pay half of the value created to the employee, 40% to overhead, pocket the remainder.
Also, stop trying to bash capitalism and profit.
Nobody's doing that. They're bashing exploitive hypercapitalism that attempts to grind the workers into dust so they can make more money. You know, people like the guys who ran Triangle Shirtwaist.
And capitalism... you have a problem with capitalism? I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sure you will be happy in your new job making rubber vomit in a factory in China.
Dude, China is capitalist. They're also authoritarian, but they're definitely capitalist.
how can we even have a discussion about some mythical 'right' to healthcare?
Why does it have to be a right? Nobody has a right to a free education, but it's in our interest to provide one. Universal healthcare has the potential to be cheaper than what we've got now, what with there being less trouble going to the doctor twice a year and catching things early and cheaply instead of spending $$ on amputations and medication.
A meaningless phrase, I think. The words "health insurance" suffices; universal health insurance is what Canadian and European residents get from their government.
It's a simple way to say that everybody gets insurance. I dunno what your beef with that is.
That assumes that today's busiesspeople aren't so greedy and stupid that they're like the monkey who has his hand stuck in the jar, too stupidly greedy to let go of the treat inside. A pretty unwarranted assumption, I think.
Damn straight. I'm in the middle of a mess with business people - they've decided to monkey with how developers name machines and are making a right mess of things while trying to save money on hardware. Net result: more time spent on pointless work and arguing with someone who has no business picking names in the first place.
For all you people who would usually just take offense to his question, instead show him proof that pornography is not an unhealthy addition to a relationship.
Is there any evidence that it is? Aside from the morality brigade, that is.
It is used in some places, but the thermal load of a datacenter is orders of magnitude greater than a single PC in a house - 300W/M^2 over an acre or so can overwhelm the heat capacity of the local ground in short order.
No, TC stands for trusted computing and implies that we are locking down your computer to only run code that MS and its designates approve of. It would also lock linux completely out of the game, as that requires the ability to change the whole system as a matter of course.
You don't need full-retard TC - you can use a smart card for authentication (sessions and transfers). The trick would be getting enough info to the card so you can cut the PC out of the loop wehn doing these auths.
You could have fine-grained security controls exposed to the user, but this would make FB security confusing to most of its users, and it also would hamper the applications and what they can do.
Hardly. at a base level, you have 3 settings: trust, trust that carries (I trust you to pick friends), and don't trust. Refining that somewhat, you can define groups you associate with - drinking buddies or whatever.
The cool thing here is that defining your membership in a finite group allows you to see info from the other people in that group, but it's really hard to get info from some random person because trust relations are not transitive: if i'm in a poker night group with 5 other guys, I can't hop to their friends simply because they have a trust relation. I'd have to make my own. If you agree on this, then the question becomes how to make the creation and admin of a group simple and easy. If you don't you can still do things like limit access to two degrees of relation, which helps with the volume of info available.
Slashdot Mirror
just remember - it's just a job. You aren't paid to care about the company unless you have a serious equity stake.
If I have a choice at all, I don't care about your problems. If you can't give good service (Script be damned), I walk.
I said that it had the potential, but I haven't seen anything solid from Obama's admin that would go the right way for that. His proposals seem to vague to really support the whole single payer setup that would help that happen. Specifically, if HMOs are allowed to survive and do things like deny preventative treatment or not pay for annual checkups for everybody, I don't see it happening.
To your point on supply, we can fill the gap somewhat with PAs (I don't like that much, but whatever), who take about 3 years to train. We can shore up some of the GP with assistants and expand the number of MDs being graduated (AFAIK, the AMA limits the supply artificially) for the long term
that's awful. I'd pitch the idea to management with something about how much time is wasted due to crap hardware and if they don't go for it, just smile and collect a paycheck.
It sets a point below which you can't hire an American. It sets a bar where anyone who is incapable of producing a minimum output is considered useless and it is better to stick em on the government teat forever because they won't ever get a chance to grab the bottom rung and work their way up.
That assumes that pay correlates to value produced. It doesn't: instead, pay is based on supply/demand. Without minimum wage, crap jobs would pay way less and the owners would just pocket the difference.
But if you really want to understand why raising the minimum wage is such an important political issue all you need to know is that most union contracts are keyed to the minimum wage.
I'm ok with raising the minimum wage to what it was 10 years ago.
How much did you pay for your knives? Mine were $300 on sale (henckels 4 star) and still work fine 10 years later.
I guess you could buy yourself a decent PC and 22" monitor and write off the cost. Figure $800 or so for the PC - $200 tax return.
If a company paid you exactly what you produce for the company, the company would be losing money in Soc. Sec. alone.
Who said the proportion has to be 100%? Pay half of the value created to the employee, 40% to overhead, pocket the remainder.
Also, stop trying to bash capitalism and profit.
Nobody's doing that. They're bashing exploitive hypercapitalism that attempts to grind the workers into dust so they can make more money. You know, people like the guys who ran Triangle Shirtwaist.
And capitalism... you have a problem with capitalism? I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sure you will be happy in your new job making rubber vomit in a factory in China.
Dude, China is capitalist. They're also authoritarian, but they're definitely capitalist.
as a customer, why do I care?
how can we even have a discussion about some mythical 'right' to healthcare?
Why does it have to be a right? Nobody has a right to a free education, but it's in our interest to provide one. Universal healthcare has the potential to be cheaper than what we've got now, what with there being less trouble going to the doctor twice a year and catching things early and cheaply instead of spending $$ on amputations and medication.
A meaningless phrase, I think. The words "health insurance" suffices; universal health insurance is what Canadian and European residents get from their government.
It's a simple way to say that everybody gets insurance. I dunno what your beef with that is.
That assumes that today's busiesspeople aren't so greedy and stupid that they're like the monkey who has his hand stuck in the jar, too stupidly greedy to let go of the treat inside. A pretty unwarranted assumption, I think.
Damn straight. I'm in the middle of a mess with business people - they've decided to monkey with how developers name machines and are making a right mess of things while trying to save money on hardware. Net result: more time spent on pointless work and arguing with someone who has no business picking names in the first place.
For all you people who would usually just take offense to his question, instead show him proof that pornography is not an unhealthy addition to a relationship.
Is there any evidence that it is? Aside from the morality brigade, that is.
I know you're joking, but browsing myspace is far less likely to result in a sexual harassment suit than farmsex.com.
You WILL buy health insurance
Excuse me, but what idiot wants to be one infection/disease/bad injury away from a gutter?
It is used in some places, but the thermal load of a datacenter is orders of magnitude greater than a single PC in a house - 300W/M^2 over an acre or so can overwhelm the heat capacity of the local ground in short order.
I have never actually *seen* a DVR, or know anyone that uses one. And I am a serious TV watcher - at least 8 hours a day.
DVRs are for people who want to do other things with their life and still catch the shows they like, not someone who's glued to the set all day.
Hearing Joe rattle off a subaru commercial in her new car made me cringe. And she didn't even drive it fast - what's the point?
It seems like the cost effective thing to do in the vast majority of cases with x386 is to get multiple boxes with 4 gig of ram.
Nah, just build 64 bit boxes with however much ram you can get that is under the current price knee. 4G looks affordable, so 16 or 32G should be fine.
If you remap the memory from 3.5-4G above 4G, you can put the PCI memory there and stick the .5G of ram on the end of your existing RAM.
You cannot get around that with technical reasonings like "but we dont host the files, we just provide .torrent files".
Why not? The law is replete with examples like that.
No, TC stands for trusted computing and implies that we are locking down your computer to only run code that MS and its designates approve of. It would also lock linux completely out of the game, as that requires the ability to change the whole system as a matter of course.
You don't need full-retard TC - you can use a smart card for authentication (sessions and transfers). The trick would be getting enough info to the card so you can cut the PC out of the loop wehn doing these auths.
what if you disable the password reset feature on the box? Then all you can do is reset the device to factory and start plugging in config from there.
You could have fine-grained security controls exposed to the user, but this would make FB security confusing to most of its users, and it also would hamper the applications and what they can do.
Hardly. at a base level, you have 3 settings: trust, trust that carries (I trust you to pick friends), and don't trust. Refining that somewhat, you can define groups you associate with - drinking buddies or whatever.
The cool thing here is that defining your membership in a finite group allows you to see info from the other people in that group, but it's really hard to get info from some random person because trust relations are not transitive: if i'm in a poker night group with 5 other guys, I can't hop to their friends simply because they have a trust relation. I'd have to make my own. If you agree on this, then the question becomes how to make the creation and admin of a group simple and easy. If you don't you can still do things like limit access to two degrees of relation, which helps with the volume of info available.
Otherwise Childs could sue SF farther into bankruptcy
Farther into BK - I like that.