Wow... so you honestly believe there's enough philanthropic money out there to fund society's higher education needs?
Yes.
But I think you are talking about "student needs" -- and they damn well do not "need" a degree, and I am talking about "employer needs for an educated workforce".
Because if you don't get a scholarship, you don't go. If if the "needs" are higher -- and by that, I mean the needs of the employment market, not the (putative, and unproven) "needs" of the students -- then the funding for scholarships will come from the companies that "need".
The whole "guaranteed student loan" thing is B.S.. If the loans are "guaranteed by the U.S. government", then why aren't they being paid off by the U.S. government as people are going bankrupt truing to keep up payments, because they are prohibited from defaulting on them?
Why kind of "guarantee" is that, to the lending institution?
We can fund AIG to the tune of $800,000,000,000 via the ACA, but we can't afford to pay off all the guaranteed student loans?
For a start, I live and work in one of the countries most heavily disenfranchsed (defrauded by any other name) by large American Corporatations (Facebook, Starbucks, McDonalds, Apple et al) - the UK. So the entire set of arguments you make about taking advantage of economic development zones is unavailable to me.
This is because you are acting as an employee, rather than as an independent contractor, actually employed by a company in a tax haven, rather than employed by a UK firm. This is how you've set things up with your employer. Since you stated that you're salaried, it's actually within the realm of possibility for you. But obviously not for hourlies, unless their services were contracted from another company as well.
So is it possible that I could do something about UK tax laws, maybe to redress the balance? Well, I can write to my representative (MP) and ask them to petition government for this. However, when just a small handful of multinational companies have lobbying budgets for the UK which are several orders of magnitude greater than my salary, the reality is that large economic corporations are always going to "get there way".
Unless your MP is a corrupt SOB (in which case: vote them out next election), then such changes to the UK tax code would be to their advantage as well. A rising tide floats all boats.
[...] it quickly becomes apparent that if we really wanted to make substantial change, then we would tackle the gross imbalance between the way that governments treat corporations and the way that they treat private individuals.
Yes, that's one option available to you.
But that share has to be *fair*, and *NOT* whatever is left to pay once the big multinationals have sequestered the bulk of their earnings to zero-tax jurisdictions.
I think this is the major part of your problem: you appear to be figuring out what you want to spend, before you decide what your tax revenue should be, and then taxing to make up the difference between what you want to get as tax revenue, and what you actually have available as tax revenue.
If you ran your household budget like this, you'd quickly end up bankrupt.
When you have less money coming in: you need to spend less, not confiscate the difference. so you can spend whatever the heck you want.
And if I was making all this up and it *was* sour grapes, then ask yourself this: why is it that Apple, Facebook and others have so many billions in financial assets held overseas - in these zero-tax jurisdictions - that they refuse to repatriate into the US? Answer: because they would have to pay corporation tax on it. Which means that the corporations would have to pay their fair share.
And this is totally incorrect. These companies have already paid corporate taxes on the money in the jurisdictions in which that money was earned by those corporations.
Two countries in the world double-tax money earned in foreign countries like this:
1. The U.S. 2. Eritrea
The entire idea of "repatriation" is a flawed one: that money was never a citizen of the U.S., and bringing it into the U.S. -- hell, if someone from China gets a free greencard if they spend $1M in the U.S. -- those companies should be given greencards under the EB-5 for each $1M they transfer from a Cayman Islands bank to a U.S. bank.
If you could get US corporations to actually pay all corporation tax in the jurisdiction where the income was earned [and don't give me weasel words about the location for income on the internet being arbitrary
I won't.
It's all about where the sales were *booked*. The sale took place in the country where it was *booked*.
This is E.U. law.
If you want to change E.U. law -- argue with Germany; they're nominally in control of the E.U. government.
yeah teachers are completely vital to the vitality of our society, their value is enormous, that's why we pay them so well/snark
Teachers, as real people, or teachers, as in the public education system, as controlled through tenure, and the activities of their union, the NEA?
Because seriously: I don't consider public school administrators teachers, nor do I consider "teachers" in public schools with below median test scores such, either.
I also find it funny that republiacans keep pushing to drill more oil and to sell the strategic oil reserve at a loss to raise short term cash. It is that short sighted thinking. Oil is low. Let other people do the work. Save yours for when the price goes up.
Technically, both Obama and Clinton were determined to break Russia's back. This had a lot to do with Syria, but also with the situation in the Ukraine, and the seizure of Crimea by Russia in order to have a warm water port out of which to ship oil, given that the U.S. led war in Afghanistan was endangering the Russian oil pipeline, and thus their ability to sell oil into Europe.
As a result, we had not only about 10x increase in fracking under the Obama presidency, compared to the prior Republican administration, we also had massive Democratic support for the Keystone pipeline.
So really, we've intentionally been pushing down the value of oil, as a strategy to screw Russia.
It's incidentally screwed Norway, and a number of other countries in the process.
So it's wrong to blame this on the Republicans; they're only pushing for drilling when it costs less to drill than the value of the oil you get out of it.
You may or may not be correct about the strategic oil reserves -- that has a lot more to do with leveling out the volatility in the futures market with regards to price per barrel. Again, I could see how a lack of volatility would play positively into the strategy to sink the prices of Russian oil exports.
So I don't think that you can blame the state of the strategic reserves on the Republicans -- though they may have wanted to push them down, they really didn't get pushed down. Personally I blame the commodity brokers who directly benefit from any volatility -- and they really have no political allegiance to anything that isn't printed by the Federal Reserve.
Facebook are one of a number of companies that have a habit of using exotic international tax vehicles to move profits from countries where corporation taxes are reasonable to countries where they are super-low.
You're only saying that because the scale necessary for the direct overhead of those vehicles puts them out of your personal reach.
In other words: it's sour grapes.
Technically, it's a pretty fixed cost per corporate use of those schemes, which means anyone over a certain income threshold can benefit from them, because at that point the value of the benefits of paying the costs outweigh the costs themselves.
The threshold is about $2M/year, at which point you incorporate three corporations, and then one of them hires you as a management consultant in a tax advantageous country.
There have been a number of companies that have done this is in the past in the U.S., utilizing economic development zones.
For example, the U.S.V.I. was an economic development zone at one point, about a decade or so ago, and there were a lot of people who participated in tax shelters like "Kapok, Inc.", and so forth.
By participating as a group, you can amortize the fixed costs across a number of individuals, which allows you to drop the income threshold to about $60,000 a year.
So technically, you could also play the same game that Facebook is playing, only you either aren't smart enough, or you don't have enough friends, to be able to pull it off.
Why should already super-privileged Harvard students get yet another gift?
Mostly so they don't spend all day hanging around on forums like this one, bitching about their student loan debt -- which they wouldn't have had in the first place, had they had enough academic merit to qualify for a scholarship.
One of the most important things for human mental health is to have something to do.
I think if we cared about people's mental health, we'd be holding down schizophrenics and forcibly implanting drug pumps.
And then once a month, the men in the recycled Maytag repairman jumpsuits would come by to forcibly hold them down again, in order to top the reservoirs on those drug pumps off, to make sure that the meds never ran out.
We say we care about people's mental health, but we never do the necessary things it would take to ensure it.
So I'm pretty much going to go with "even if you are right, and it's one of the most important things for human mental health, until we do the even more important things, providing that for people isn't a priority".
And yes, I felt the same way about us not providing food, clothing, and shelter for everyone -- certainly more important on Maslow's hierarchy of needs! -- before the Affordable Care Act tried to address something three layers higher in the hierarchy.
It's supposed to go "cart -> horse", not "horse -> cart".
There's people out there working 60+ hours weeks and they'll never earn even a fraction of what you make.
It turns out that society values brain surgeons higher than it values heroin addicts.
It pays each according to their value to itself.
So brain surgeons make lots of money... and heroin addicts? No so much.
Just because someone works 60+ hours a week producing art consisting of a catholic religious icon being sealed in a jar of their own urine -- said "work" mostly being the consumption of beer, in order to manufacture the urine -- doesn't mean that they have the same value to society as, for example, the CEO of Solar City.
Scandinavia uses very socialist policies and they're some of the most prosperous and happy countries in the world.
Norway is not nearly so happy.
At least not since the bottom dropped out from under the oil market that was propping up its national infrastructure. It was a non-fungible resource for a very long time, but it always had a timer on how long it's going to last. Any resource export based economic system always does.
The refugee problem has not helped; Scandinavian countries were among the first to begin refugee deportations, since they simply can't handle the influx, and absorb them into the existing social fabric, rather than having them create social enclaves.
Now Europe is dealing with the issues that the U.S. has always had to deal with, regarding multiculturalism.
Even Merkle, in her speech with Obama the other day, acknowledged that Germany is starting to hop on the deportation bandwagon, and promised only to make the processing more efficient.
It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world's most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity's food supply forever.
Global warming is not a global disaster. They designed the vault to protect against any global disaster, it didn't protect against this; therefore this is not a global disaster.
"The OS/2 community has been called upon to report supported hardware, open source any OS/2 software, make public as much OS/2 documentation as possible and post the important platform links."
That's an interesting idea.
Here's my counter offer:
I'll happily give you access to each of my OS/2 software titles.
Each title will be available in two editions, Personal ($129 with an introductory price of $99 for the first 90 days [and six months of support and maintenance updates]) and Commercial ($239 with one year of support and maintenance).
Other than a comment, there is no alternate channel with which to communicate errors in headlines or story summaries. The comment gets made, with humor, the headline gets fixed, and then the comment gets demoted.
This wouldn't be bad, if there were some way to direct message the editor for the headline and story summary in question, with having to leave a public comment in order to communicate their error.
At least my comment was made with good humor, rather than with name-calling.
So wait. They've demanded that 16 hospitals to give them ransomware?
Isn't the correct business model to give the hospitals the ransomware instead, and then demand ransom?
Is this an altruistic cyberattack? The hospitals give them the ransomware, which they install, and then they give the hospitals money so that the hospitals will send the the unlock code, and they can then move onto the next hospital?
I mean, as an approach to medical billing, it's kind of.. disruptive, but...
And the Feds enforced like mother fucking crazy. We don't want them to enforce. We hire those people to be maids, cooks, and farm hands.
Do you personally have maids, cooks, and farm hands?
Most of the people concerned about illegal immigrants accessing ACA health care for free are not rich people in border states with dozens of maids, cooks, and farm hands, doing nothing more than sitting around swimming pools sipping margaritas, and bitching about the tax rate. They are instead poor people in the U.S. who are concerned about foreign labor undercutting their ability to get manufacturing and other low skill blue collar labor jobs.
One of the reasons that Hillary didn't win is that she completely ignore these people, in favor of catering to the political wishes of employed urban yuppies in coastal cities, who didn't have the issues the rest of the U.S. faces.
Well they said it was a *Distributed* DOS attack...
What's more distributed than all the devices of a certain broadband provider, and who would have the list of names and addresses associated with those routers?
The stupid thing being that the money coming from the Feds to pay for low income people's health care brought more dollars to the state than we were spending. But around here we don't like paying for poor people to have, well, anything really.
What was being rejected was not the subsidy.
What was being rejected was the 4 year sunset on the subsidy, where the state had to take over the burden, at 25% a year, until it was shouldering 100% of it, and the fed was no longer giving the state any money whatsoever.
One year down the road, and it would have been about break-even, but two years down the road, it would have been a sucking chest wound in Arizona's economy, and in four years, it would have transitioned into a giant cancer.
The problem is that there are more poor people available to spend money, than there is persistent federal money. If the federal money had been permanent, the story would have been different.
We are currently seeing the sunset in the skyrocketing insurance premiums in California -- California drank the Kool Aid, and are now getting indigestion from it.
Arizona was a bit cheesed off, at the same time, because the fed would not enforce against illegal immigration across Arizona borders, yet at the same time, wouldn't let Arizona step up and do the enforcement that the federal government wouldn't.
This added (and continues to add) burdening of health care in Arizona, which was one of the major reasons Arizona was not really interested in participating.
What really bothers me is that your "values" and sense of "fairness" are keeping a trillion dollars from coming back into the US economy.
To be absolutely fair, the money goes to the U.S. Government, which is not "back into the US economy".
Instead, it goes to Syria, in the form of really expensive bombs dropped on people we've never met, because those people used chemical weapons on other people we've never met.
Most of the money that isn't wasted, actually goes to component manufacturers in China.
Microsoft makes their money in commercial software and services all other experiments notwithstanding. Google make some money advertising to people and building profiles and people to better Target than advertising all the other experiments notwithstanding. Can you see the difference?
Not really, no. Sorry.
Microsoft makes really complete profiles on individual persons. Google makes really complete profiles in aggregate for demographic markets.
Microsoft makes business decisions based on profile data telling them how many people they can reach with a given product. Google makes business decisions based on profile data telling them the size of each demographic their advertiser can reach with their product.
Microsoft makes a lot of products that fail, when they try to do something new. Google makes a lot of software and services with the intent of delivering advertising that fail, when they try something new.
Microsoft makes a lot of money, when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of OS and office productivity products). Google makes a lot of money when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of advertising services, search, and mail).
Microsoft loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models. Google loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.
The article starts out claiming AOL was there at the start of the Internet, and helped pave the way -- but really, "MeTooLand" (AOL) only connected itself to the Internet through a number of large VAX machines, in a last ditch attempt at to maintain relevance, in the face of educated kids asking their parents why they are paying so much money to AOL for what amounts to Internet access. AOL was the sugary cereal "adjacent to this complete breakfast".
He states that "innovation can happen anywhere" (it can) and that "we should be funding outside traditional central areas" (debatable).
And then his three examples are Sweetgreen, Framebridge, and OrderUp, which are all within one hour driving distance of each other in the DC/Baltimore metroplex.
In other words: he's funding outside of "traditional central areas" by declaring a new central area, and then claiming it's not central.
My interpretation of this, and the specific mention of these there portfolio companies for Revolution Growth, where Steve Case works, is that the VC is starting to see that a VC needs multiple VC's when it invests in a risk company, in order to spread the risk, and that no one is coming to their party.
This is a nice reminder of who and what the REAL threat is. Windows 10 data collection is not the problem. Microsoft doesn't define it's existence on profiling and targeting people, but Google does.
Microsoft doesn't do it because they can't make a cell phone that people want to buy, to save their lives.
It's not like they haven't tried, many times, including buying most of a company that was capable of making cell phones, only to have the parts drift through their fingers, like sand at a beach.
Microsoft would definitely do it if they could work it out, or buy a company that doesn't dissolve as a result of being bought by them.
I've worked in 3 employee companies, and 30.000+ ones, east, west, and midwest. The only stack ranking, ever, occurred only when there were impending "layoffs." And that ranking was alway done by direct management, and not cliquish peers. Shove your business-talk terminology (really, "Nash equilibrium?" Are you a fcking leach of an MBA, unable to produce value on your own?) where it won't see the sun, because it's part of the toxic culture.
I'm not an MBA. I've worked at IBM, Apple, Google, and half a dozen other companies. Only the small ones -- mostly startups -- didn't do stacked ranking.
If your 30,000+ employee companies that don't practice peer review, they must not be Fortune 500 technology companies, because in any technology firm of any size: stacked ranking with peer review" is how it's done.
You may think it's toxic; I prefer to think of it as "a very very large paycheck".
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... so you honestly believe there's enough philanthropic money out there to fund society's higher education needs?
Yes.
But I think you are talking about "student needs" -- and they damn well do not "need" a degree, and I am talking about "employer needs for an educated workforce".
Because if you don't get a scholarship, you don't go. If if the "needs" are higher -- and by that, I mean the needs of the employment market, not the (putative, and unproven) "needs" of the students -- then the funding for scholarships will come from the companies that "need".
The whole "guaranteed student loan" thing is B.S.. If the loans are "guaranteed by the U.S. government", then why aren't they being paid off by the U.S. government as people are going bankrupt truing to keep up payments, because they are prohibited from defaulting on them?
Why kind of "guarantee" is that, to the lending institution?
We can fund AIG to the tune of $800,000,000,000 via the ACA, but we can't afford to pay off all the guaranteed student loans?
Give me a break.
For a start, I live and work in one of the countries most heavily disenfranchsed (defrauded by any other name) by large American Corporatations (Facebook, Starbucks, McDonalds, Apple et al) - the UK. So the entire set of arguments you make about taking advantage of economic development zones is unavailable to me.
This is because you are acting as an employee, rather than as an independent contractor, actually employed by a company in a tax haven, rather than employed by a UK firm. This is how you've set things up with your employer. Since you stated that you're salaried, it's actually within the realm of possibility for you. But obviously not for hourlies, unless their services were contracted from another company as well.
So is it possible that I could do something about UK tax laws, maybe to redress the balance? Well, I can write to my representative (MP) and ask them to petition government for this. However, when just a small handful of multinational companies have lobbying budgets for the UK which are several orders of magnitude greater than my salary, the reality is that large economic corporations are always going to "get there way".
Unless your MP is a corrupt SOB (in which case: vote them out next election), then such changes to the UK tax code would be to their advantage as well. A rising tide floats all boats.
[...] it quickly becomes apparent that if we really wanted to make substantial change, then we would tackle the gross imbalance between the way that governments treat corporations and the way that they treat private individuals.
Yes, that's one option available to you.
But that share has to be *fair*, and *NOT* whatever is left to pay once the big multinationals have sequestered the bulk of their earnings to zero-tax jurisdictions.
I think this is the major part of your problem: you appear to be figuring out what you want to spend, before you decide what your tax revenue should be, and then taxing to make up the difference between what you want to get as tax revenue, and what you actually have available as tax revenue.
If you ran your household budget like this, you'd quickly end up bankrupt.
When you have less money coming in: you need to spend less, not confiscate the difference. so you can spend whatever the heck you want.
And if I was making all this up and it *was* sour grapes, then ask yourself this: why is it that Apple, Facebook and others have so many billions in financial assets held overseas - in these zero-tax jurisdictions - that they refuse to repatriate into the US? Answer: because they would have to pay corporation tax on it. Which means that the corporations would have to pay their fair share.
And this is totally incorrect. These companies have already paid corporate taxes on the money in the jurisdictions in which that money was earned by those corporations.
Two countries in the world double-tax money earned in foreign countries like this:
1. The U.S.
2. Eritrea
The entire idea of "repatriation" is a flawed one: that money was never a citizen of the U.S., and bringing it into the U.S. -- hell, if someone from China gets a free greencard if they spend $1M in the U.S. -- those companies should be given greencards under the EB-5 for each $1M they transfer from a Cayman Islands bank to a U.S. bank.
If you could get US corporations to actually pay all corporation tax in the jurisdiction where the income was earned [and don't give me weasel words about the location for income on the internet being arbitrary
I won't.
It's all about where the sales were *booked*. The sale took place in the country where it was *booked*.
This is E.U. law.
If you want to change E.U. law -- argue with Germany; they're nominally in control of the E.U. government.
It pays each according to their value to itself.
yeah teachers are completely vital to the vitality of our society, their value is enormous, that's why we pay them so well /snark
Teachers, as real people, or teachers, as in the public education system, as controlled through tenure, and the activities of their union, the NEA?
Because seriously: I don't consider public school administrators teachers, nor do I consider "teachers" in public schools with below median test scores such, either.
I also find it funny that republiacans keep pushing to drill more oil and to sell the strategic oil reserve at a loss to raise short term cash. It is that short sighted thinking. Oil is low. Let other people do the work. Save yours for when the price goes up.
Technically, both Obama and Clinton were determined to break Russia's back. This had a lot to do with Syria, but also with the situation in the Ukraine, and the seizure of Crimea by Russia in order to have a warm water port out of which to ship oil, given that the U.S. led war in Afghanistan was endangering the Russian oil pipeline, and thus their ability to sell oil into Europe.
As a result, we had not only about 10x increase in fracking under the Obama presidency, compared to the prior Republican administration, we also had massive Democratic support for the Keystone pipeline.
So really, we've intentionally been pushing down the value of oil, as a strategy to screw Russia.
It's incidentally screwed Norway, and a number of other countries in the process.
So it's wrong to blame this on the Republicans; they're only pushing for drilling when it costs less to drill than the value of the oil you get out of it.
You may or may not be correct about the strategic oil reserves -- that has a lot more to do with leveling out the volatility in the futures market with regards to price per barrel. Again, I could see how a lack of volatility would play positively into the strategy to sink the prices of Russian oil exports.
So I don't think that you can blame the state of the strategic reserves on the Republicans -- though they may have wanted to push them down, they really didn't get pushed down. Personally I blame the commodity brokers who directly benefit from any volatility -- and they really have no political allegiance to anything that isn't printed by the Federal Reserve.
Facebook are one of a number of companies that have a habit of using exotic international tax vehicles to move profits from countries where corporation taxes are reasonable to countries where they are super-low.
You're only saying that because the scale necessary for the direct overhead of those vehicles puts them out of your personal reach.
In other words: it's sour grapes.
Technically, it's a pretty fixed cost per corporate use of those schemes, which means anyone over a certain income threshold can benefit from them, because at that point the value of the benefits of paying the costs outweigh the costs themselves.
The threshold is about $2M/year, at which point you incorporate three corporations, and then one of them hires you as a management consultant in a tax advantageous country.
There have been a number of companies that have done this is in the past in the U.S., utilizing economic development zones.
For example, the U.S.V.I. was an economic development zone at one point, about a decade or so ago, and there were a lot of people who participated in tax shelters like "Kapok, Inc.", and so forth.
By participating as a group, you can amortize the fixed costs across a number of individuals, which allows you to drop the income threshold to about $60,000 a year.
So technically, you could also play the same game that Facebook is playing, only you either aren't smart enough, or you don't have enough friends, to be able to pull it off.
But it's doable.
Why should already super-privileged Harvard students get yet another gift?
Mostly so they don't spend all day hanging around on forums like this one, bitching about their student loan debt -- which they wouldn't have had in the first place, had they had enough academic merit to qualify for a scholarship.
One of the most important things for human mental health is to have something to do.
I think if we cared about people's mental health, we'd be holding down schizophrenics and forcibly implanting drug pumps.
And then once a month, the men in the recycled Maytag repairman jumpsuits would come by to forcibly hold them down again, in order to top the reservoirs on those drug pumps off, to make sure that the meds never ran out.
We say we care about people's mental health, but we never do the necessary things it would take to ensure it.
So I'm pretty much going to go with "even if you are right, and it's one of the most important things for human mental health, until we do the even more important things, providing that for people isn't a priority".
And yes, I felt the same way about us not providing food, clothing, and shelter for everyone -- certainly more important on Maslow's hierarchy of needs! -- before the Affordable Care Act tried to address something three layers higher in the hierarchy.
It's supposed to go "cart -> horse", not "horse -> cart".
There's people out there working 60+ hours weeks and they'll never earn even a fraction of what you make.
It turns out that society values brain surgeons higher than it values heroin addicts.
It pays each according to their value to itself.
So brain surgeons make lots of money ... and heroin addicts? No so much.
Just because someone works 60+ hours a week producing art consisting of a catholic religious icon being sealed in a jar of their own urine -- said "work" mostly being the consumption of beer, in order to manufacture the urine -- doesn't mean that they have the same value to society as, for example, the CEO of Solar City.
Scandinavia uses very socialist policies and they're some of the most prosperous and happy countries in the world.
Norway is not nearly so happy.
At least not since the bottom dropped out from under the oil market that was propping up its national infrastructure. It was a non-fungible resource for a very long time, but it always had a timer on how long it's going to last. Any resource export based economic system always does.
The refugee problem has not helped; Scandinavian countries were among the first to begin refugee deportations, since they simply can't handle the influx, and absorb them into the existing social fabric, rather than having them create social enclaves.
Now Europe is dealing with the issues that the U.S. has always had to deal with, regarding multiculturalism.
Even Merkle, in her speech with Obama the other day, acknowledged that Germany is starting to hop on the deportation bandwagon, and promised only to make the processing more efficient.
Well, you heard it here first, folks...
It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world's most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity's food supply forever.
Global warming is not a global disaster. They designed the vault to protect against any global disaster, it didn't protect against this; therefore this is not a global disaster.
The logic is irrefutable (and looney).
"The OS/2 community has been called upon to report supported hardware, open source any OS/2 software, make public as much OS/2 documentation as possible and post the important platform links."
That's an interesting idea.
Here's my counter offer:
I'll happily give you access to each of my OS/2 software titles.
Each title will be available in two editions, Personal ($129 with an introductory price of $99 for the first 90 days [and six months of support and maintenance updates]) and Commercial ($239 with one year of support and maintenance).
I think that's fair, don't you?
I am saddened to see my comment market "troll".
Other than a comment, there is no alternate channel with which to communicate errors in headlines or story summaries. The comment gets made, with humor, the headline gets fixed, and then the comment gets demoted.
This wouldn't be bad, if there were some way to direct message the editor for the headline and story summary in question, with having to leave a public comment in order to communicate their error.
At least my comment was made with good humor, rather than with name-calling.
"Ransomware demanded"???
So wait. They've demanded that 16 hospitals to give them ransomware?
Isn't the correct business model to give the hospitals the ransomware instead, and then demand ransom?
Is this an altruistic cyberattack? The hospitals give them the ransomware, which they install, and then they give the hospitals money so that the hospitals will send the the unlock code, and they can then move onto the next hospital?
I mean, as an approach to medical billing, it's kind of .. disruptive, but...
And the Feds enforced like mother fucking crazy. We don't want them to enforce. We hire those people to be maids, cooks, and farm hands.
Do you personally have maids, cooks, and farm hands?
Most of the people concerned about illegal immigrants accessing ACA health care for free are not rich people in border states with dozens of maids, cooks, and farm hands, doing nothing more than sitting around swimming pools sipping margaritas, and bitching about the tax rate. They are instead poor people in the U.S. who are concerned about foreign labor undercutting their ability to get manufacturing and other low skill blue collar labor jobs.
One of the reasons that Hillary didn't win is that she completely ignore these people, in favor of catering to the political wishes of employed urban yuppies in coastal cities, who didn't have the issues the rest of the U.S. faces.
Well they said it was a *Distributed* DOS attack...
What's more distributed than all the devices of a certain broadband provider, and who would have the list of names and addresses associated with those routers?
The stupid thing being that the money coming from the Feds to pay for low income people's health care brought more dollars to the state than we were spending. But around here we don't like paying for poor people to have, well, anything really.
What was being rejected was not the subsidy.
What was being rejected was the 4 year sunset on the subsidy, where the state had to take over the burden, at 25% a year, until it was shouldering 100% of it, and the fed was no longer giving the state any money whatsoever.
One year down the road, and it would have been about break-even, but two years down the road, it would have been a sucking chest wound in Arizona's economy, and in four years, it would have transitioned into a giant cancer.
The problem is that there are more poor people available to spend money, than there is persistent federal money. If the federal money had been permanent, the story would have been different.
We are currently seeing the sunset in the skyrocketing insurance premiums in California -- California drank the Kool Aid, and are now getting indigestion from it.
Arizona was a bit cheesed off, at the same time, because the fed would not enforce against illegal immigration across Arizona borders, yet at the same time, wouldn't let Arizona step up and do the enforcement that the federal government wouldn't.
This added (and continues to add) burdening of health care in Arizona, which was one of the major reasons Arizona was not really interested in participating.
Asking for a raise can easily get you feedback.
FTFY. You're welcome.
Oh, sure, argue with actual math.
Wait. I support that.
NVM.
What really bothers me is that your "values" and sense of "fairness" are keeping a trillion dollars from coming back into the US economy.
To be absolutely fair, the money goes to the U.S. Government, which is not "back into the US economy".
Instead, it goes to Syria, in the form of really expensive bombs dropped on people we've never met, because those people used chemical weapons on other people we've never met.
Most of the money that isn't wasted, actually goes to component manufacturers in China.
Microsoft makes their money in commercial software and services all other experiments notwithstanding. Google make some money advertising to people and building profiles and people to better Target than advertising all the other experiments notwithstanding. Can you see the difference?
Not really, no. Sorry.
Microsoft makes really complete profiles on individual persons.
Google makes really complete profiles in aggregate for demographic markets.
Microsoft makes business decisions based on profile data telling them how many people they can reach with a given product.
Google makes business decisions based on profile data telling them the size of each demographic their advertiser can reach with their product.
Microsoft makes a lot of products that fail, when they try to do something new.
Google makes a lot of software and services with the intent of delivering advertising that fail, when they try something new.
Microsoft makes a lot of money, when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of OS and office productivity products).
Google makes a lot of money when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of advertising services, search, and mail).
Microsoft loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.
Google loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.
Kinda not seeing the difference, Bruno...
Steve Case is high.
The article starts out claiming AOL was there at the start of the Internet, and helped pave the way -- but really, "MeTooLand" (AOL) only connected itself to the Internet through a number of large VAX machines, in a last ditch attempt at to maintain relevance, in the face of educated kids asking their parents why they are paying so much money to AOL for what amounts to Internet access. AOL was the sugary cereal "adjacent to this complete breakfast".
He states that "innovation can happen anywhere" (it can) and that "we should be funding outside traditional central areas" (debatable).
And then his three examples are Sweetgreen, Framebridge, and OrderUp, which are all within one hour driving distance of each other in the DC/Baltimore metroplex.
In other words: he's funding outside of "traditional central areas" by declaring a new central area, and then claiming it's not central.
My interpretation of this, and the specific mention of these there portfolio companies for Revolution Growth, where Steve Case works, is that the VC is starting to see that a VC needs multiple VC's when it invests in a risk company, in order to spread the risk, and that no one is coming to their party.
This is a nice reminder of who and what the REAL threat is. Windows 10 data collection is not the problem. Microsoft doesn't define it's existence on profiling and targeting people, but Google does.
Microsoft doesn't do it because they can't make a cell phone that people want to buy, to save their lives.
It's not like they haven't tried, many times, including buying most of a company that was capable of making cell phones, only to have the parts drift through their fingers, like sand at a beach.
Microsoft would definitely do it if they could work it out, or buy a company that doesn't dissolve as a result of being bought by them.
> 552 Fuck off -- the requested action was requested by a dweeb
Obvious much?
Michael Steil... is that you?
LOL!
I've worked in 3 employee companies, and 30.000+ ones, east, west, and midwest. The only stack ranking, ever, occurred only when there were impending "layoffs." And that ranking was alway done by direct management, and not cliquish peers. Shove your business-talk terminology (really, "Nash equilibrium?" Are you a fcking leach of an MBA, unable to produce value on your own?) where it won't see the sun, because it's part of the toxic culture.
I'm not an MBA. I've worked at IBM, Apple, Google, and half a dozen other companies. Only the small ones -- mostly startups -- didn't do stacked ranking.
If your 30,000+ employee companies that don't practice peer review, they must not be Fortune 500 technology companies, because in any technology firm of any size: stacked ranking with peer review" is how it's done.
You may think it's toxic; I prefer to think of it as "a very very large paycheck".