Oh, be serious. The poor should refer to themselves as veterans so when a suicide bomb finally does go off in the United States the Republicans will finally be interested in helping them!
I hope they do better than the VA under the Democrats - helping them right into the grave!
It's trademarked and patented. If that's not proprietary, you must have a definition different than anything I've ever seen.
USB-C just means your laptop can dock way more easily.
And being the ONLY (only) USB port on the box means plugging in any of my many USB accessories impossible without an additional adapter. Worse if I don't want to use an expensive bluetooth mouse (forget about using Apple's way overpriced one - they break too frequently). I guess I could look for a mouse with a USB-C receiver. Oh, wait, there are none.
What accessories are you talking about? The only proprietary port on the Macbooks is the power adapter.
The "Thunderbolt" port is also propriety, and it is fast becoming the ONLY port on Macbooks. My Macbook pro only has 1 USB port, and the latest Macbook has none (unless you count USB-C, which I don't because I don't have any USB-C devices). So buy a Macbook, your choices are to buy proprietary Thunderbolt devices, or adapters for your USB stuff.
Yea, and I like Netflix better. But Hulu has more current stuff, so it's a viable model. But including commercials, it's crap. Can't imagine who those people are that pay $8/mo to watch commercials.
At the worst case the bandwidth cost will be doubled.
Gross underestimate. Maybe minimum it will be doubled. Some sites have video ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, scroll-overs, and number media ads and a little block of text backed up by nothing but some tags and style sheets. Just like the typical magazine of the 1990's, many websites are about 70% ads. Unfortunately, that only counts page space - the bandwidth required by the ads are much higher than needed for the content. Only sites that serve lots of video as part of their content don't fall into that category, and then you also have to count the embedded video advertisements on front of the video content.
The whole ad-blocking movement is as counterproductive as it can be.
You have that backwards. It is the advertisers (you) that have created the market for ad-blockers. If the advertising didn't force users to dig through all the pop-ups, pop-unders, hunting for whatever that is playing sound, waiting forever for page loads, and all the other annoyances that the advertisers have foisted on the web, nobody would care about installing ad-blockers.
It's not users that need fixing - it's the advertisers. They created the problem. They need to fix it.
The best example is Flattr. Almost nobody use it, even though it is mostly targeted to technical people and it is a very easy and cheap way to support for example the open source products you use.
That's because there's no there there. Reddit uses a similar model (Reddit Gold), and it works just fine and lots of people use it. Some people (^) act like advertising is the thing and everything exists just to support it. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to be a marketer, learn to do it smarter. There are lots of ways to do that without resorting to beating up on your audience and demonizing people that try to fix the problem you created.
I think it is an irrevelant technical difference if the ad is coming from a google server or from a - maybe google - server leased by the web page creator.
Clearly you have no idea how the Web works, based on your incredibly ignorant response. It's not an "irrelevant technical difference" at all - it's the key issue fundamental to the entire argument.
now that the percentage of ad blocking users exploded I am sure that within one year a few web hosts start to proxy ads.
No, you're wrong, they will never do that - it will cost them in server hardware and bandwidth to host all that advertising. It would create massive logistical issues with advertiser billing (not to mention new vectors for click fraud).
I am afraid you will be the only one who will be happy with this solution.
I really don't care - as I already stated. There are several web sites that have already lost my business because the obtrusive annoyance of their ads is not worth putting up with to consume whatever "content" they have. Hulu eventually wised up and started offering an add-free subscription service. Too late for me, because I had already cancelled my subscription because of all the annoying un-skippable advertising.
You should stop posting on this topic - you're just going to embarrass yourself further.
There is a difference between not looking at the ad directly and blocking it.
Not really. I don't use adblock, but I do use NoScript. It won't run JavaScript in my browser unless I allow it. Usually I allow scripts for ONLY the website I'm visiting. In practice, that removes most of the ads - I never see them. So the content host isn't hosting an ad at all, and they are not included in their content. Instead, they are asking me to allow my browser to go to some other random site on the Internet and download that content. If you want to show me an ad on your site, then, fine, show me an ad on your site. But I'm not going somewhere else to fetch it.
If I remember well, devices which removed ads automatically was proven illegal.
You don't, and they weren't. They are just impractical in the US. In Japan, broadcasters are required to send markers in their stream to distinguish between advertising and content, and those devices are fairly popular there.
LOL! You really had me going there for a minute. Actually, several hours... as despite the fact that I found a lot about Sonarr, there was nothing that actually introduced it with "What problem is Sonarr designed to solve?" It turns out, not much. Looks like a UI for a bunch of files you've managed to acquire through other means (usenet or bittorrent), with other interfaces on top of those, clients to interface between Sonarr and the client on top of your source, and then some "indexers", whatever options there may be for that, which I never even got to looking into.
So... seems to be nothing more than a pretty face on top of whatever files you've manage to store somewhere that were yanked from 3 or 4 other pieces of software and loaded into a directory. RTorrrent client? Oh, yea, it supports that! Now just add another interface on top (because Sonarr will only talk to a web-based interface on top of rtorrent), figure out how to get those communicating, and then... I'm not really sure. Find a bunch of torrent sources for the show you want, throw them in there, and eventually, if it's populated, I guess Sonarr's "Add a series" feature will actually be able to find whatever files it want in whatever format it needs to add it to the list.
You cant say Microsoft is no longer supporting Win8 in the title and later in the article clarify that they are supporting Win8.1, they are the same fucking thing, one just has more updates to it.
Not really - it's a different kernel, including boot loader and everything. You can't just say "it's more updates" - that would mean Windows 7 is the same as Windows 10 because "more updates".
I wrote a certification book on Windows 8 that then had to have tons of revisions for Windows 8.1 because we (and the publisher) decided it was not worth doing a production run for the Windows 8 manuals. Trust me, it's a different operating system.
Name another media company that went out of their way to develop a patent-free media codec that was independent and competitive with other codecs of the time? (Google Dirac)
H.265 is simply far too encumbered by "IP" costs and licensing restrictions to be of any use whatsoever. Sure, there are places (like the douchebags at BBC) who will decide to use it, but rational folks should run from it like the bubonic plague. Especially folks that create content. If you create something that uses H.265 as the master source, your copyright is worthless, because you content is now encumbered inside of format that requires you to pay fees if you want to extract it, convert it, distribute it, or even view it. "It can't really be that bad," you say. Sure, you can buy equipment and software that will do that for you, but part of your cost is the partial fee that the manufacturer is paying for licensing.
Someone have a chat with the BBC about putting resources into VP9 instead. It will save them and everyone else a lot of money, pain, lawyer fees and headaches into the future.
Appropriate quote from Politico on the US presidential campaign candidate:
"So Rubio's foreign policy and national security strategy is to invade Middle Eastern countries, create power vacuums for terrorist organizations, allow their people to come to America unvetted, give them legal status and citizenship, then impose a massive surveillance state to monitor the problem,”... “I'm trying to figure out if it is more incoherent than dangerous or vice versa.”
Why do you need Windows Media Center for the CableCard? Who would make a piece of hardware with no support for any other media software?
It *works* with other software... unless the cable company (or content providers) are transmitting channels / shows marked as either "copy once" or "copy none". These flags mean that the channel and any recording of them will ONLY play in a DRM "protected path". Microsoft's Windows "Play Ready" is the only descrambling method that will allow you to play those channels / shows or any recordings. There are some cable companies that have started adding DRM to almost ALL their channels. All the premium movie channels are protected. All the Nat Geo channels are protected. There are many more.
I would say complain to the FCC, but in spite of their initial move to require all TV Cable providers to support CableCard everywhere, they have now even allowed that requirement to expire, and have no interest in having the TV providers play nice with their customers (like NOT requiring $25-$50 in additional "cable box rental fees" to actually be able to WATCH the TV).
Unfortunately, Plex doesn't support encryped SDV cable channels or I'd have switched long ago (aka. when I got my CableCARD and already had XBMC installed I would have not installed Windows when it didn't work)
Yep. Same situation here. I'm experimenting with some other stuff, mainly the HDHomeRun DVR software. Unfortunately, most of their clients are not able to play anything but the "copy-freely" content. I've dumped most of the cable channels, but there are a few (NatGeo, which the wife watches a lot, comes to mind) that are still transmitted as DRM'd. For EVERY show. Supposedly the HDHomeRun Android client will play the DRM stuff, but the Kodi client still can't, and the Windows "View" client can't view the DVR recordings at all. So that stuff isn't ready to replace WMC yet.
I'm hopeful that there will be some Android TV devices coming out soon that will work. So far, there are none running Marshmallow (Android 6), which is the first version that can do hardware-based MPEG2 decoding. Without that, there is no way to watch live TV or anything recorded in WMC or HDHomeRun DVR.
Sure you can get a free education to become an artist.
But why would you want to study something your can't monetize?
It happens here in the US all the time! And often paid for with loans. Which can't be paid back, because there are only so many jobs for many of the useless degrees that state-supported colleges offer these days.
Are you serious? Yes, NoX is affected by sunlight - it creates ozone. Very unhealthy.
The OP's point is not that NOx isn't noxious, it's that it isn't persistent. The ozone created by sunlight on NOX is unstable and breaks down quickly. If we stopped pumping NOx into the atmosphere, it and its byproducts would all be gone in a matter of weeks. The same can't be said of CO2.
Actually, yes, it can. CO2 is recycled constantly. It's part of the natural cycle. The IPCC uses the Bern Carbon Cycle Model, others estimate shorter lifespans. The ranges are large - anywhere between 2 to 7 years or more - but these estimates rely heavily on dispersion rates, and the baselines which are driven by the prevalent natural consumers and producers of CO2.
That said, we already know the immediate deleterious effects of ground-level ozone on ALL life forms. Effects of greenhouse gasses on the global temperatures, not so much.
So this happened. Environmentalists have gotten so worked up about CO2 (which plants need to create FOOD) that they don't even care about toxic pollution any more. Apparently, killing, disease-causing smog is now preferable to a warmer (1 - 2 degrees) planet. Incredible.
No, see, NOxs are degraded by sunlight. They're not a problem for our great grandchildren. However, the CO2 coming out of your gasoline car and the refinery cracking diesel oil into gasoline is a major problem for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Transportation is a huge source of CO2. Diesel is, over the lifecycle, so much better for the environment that gasoline engines should be fined.
Are you serious? Yes, NoX is affected by sunlight - it creates ozone. Very unhealthy.
I cannot agree with you on this, and Europeans no longer do, either. Diesel engines create real pollution, and you seem to be saying it's okay to kill more people with that today than deal with some extra CO2, which is simply a part of the naturally occurring cycle of life (respiration/photosynthesis) on Earth. The marginal reduction in CO2 emissions is simply not worth the very high cost of damaging pollution - there is no way to justify it, just considering the health costs alone.
The major trick, in humans, is that (so far as we know) there aren't a bunch of conveniently defined castes to work with.
It's actually much more complicated than that. We are still struggling on figuring out which human behaviors are defined genetically at all versus defined via environmental learning (the old nature vs. nurture question). Before you can start modifying human behavior through chemistry, you first need to identify which behaviors can actually be altered that way at all. And we're a long way from doing that.
This has less to do with macro economic than it does Federal-level financing in a society with a negative birth rate after the baby boomer generation. Boomers simply did not have enough children to support the ponzi schemes created by social security and the welfare state. Governments haven't dismantled immigration systems to support old people (they don't care about them), but to prop up the unsustainable central banking system which depends on constant growth and perpetual positive interest rates. These systems are based on debt instead of assets, and the only way to continue debt payments is perpetual growth, which requires an ever-increasing population of tax-paying workers.
inflation has gone up so much that you need two incomes to compensate for it.
Wrong. Inflation isn't one-way. The cost of everything goes up with inflation, including labor. You can't explain the disparity in work/lifestyle changes by simply blaming inflation - which will affect incomes just as much as expenditures.
medical expenses are sky rocketing because we have old people who need constant care, but can't pay for it.
Incorrect. Medial expenses grew so fast because of the dual issues of new, expensive "maintenance" medications (the pharmaceutical industry), and the non-payers utilizing the most expensive type of care (hospital emergency rooms) because it's the only place they could get treatment without insurance. To maintain, hospitals raised the rates for the paying customers to make up for the non-paying customers.
Car however keep going up. with base models of basic cars used to $12k in 2000, it is closer to $18k for the same model(mostly) now.
That's caused by the finance industry (banks, and central banking intervention in the free market). It's also caused by the reams of federal regulations requiring certain specifications for all cars. Ford, for instance, stopped making the "Aerostar" vans because they became illegal. There was no way to continue manufacturing them to meet the federal regs. (The Windstar was a horrible, poor substitute).
lastly before medicare. 60% of the population didn't have any health care. doctors are for the rich after all.
No, that's just complete bullshit - you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Doctors used to be community professionals that helped everyone, and people paid what and when they could. There just not as many entitled indigents demanding free care - people tried to pay their way.
Consider weev to be a stand-in for the folks in our community who I don't want to name because this would turn into a personal attack if I did. You probably know of them although certainly none are friends.
It's not a personal attack if you're just pointing out facts about certain behavior that any reasonable person would view as unacceptable. If your comments about these presumed "stand-in folks" would be considered personal attacks, then you are simply pointing out some subjective viewpoint in opposition to others' viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, be serious. The poor should refer to themselves as veterans so when a suicide bomb finally does go off in the United States the Republicans will finally be interested in helping them!
I hope they do better than the VA under the Democrats - helping them right into the grave!
Thunderbolt is not proprietary.
It's trademarked and patented. If that's not proprietary, you must have a definition different than anything I've ever seen.
USB-C just means your laptop can dock way more easily.
And being the ONLY (only) USB port on the box means plugging in any of my many USB accessories impossible without an additional adapter. Worse if I don't want to use an expensive bluetooth mouse (forget about using Apple's way overpriced one - they break too frequently). I guess I could look for a mouse with a USB-C receiver. Oh, wait, there are none.
Bitching over nothing.
Fanboi is irrational apologist fanboi.
What accessories are you talking about? The only proprietary port on the Macbooks is the power adapter.
The "Thunderbolt" port is also propriety, and it is fast becoming the ONLY port on Macbooks. My Macbook pro only has 1 USB port, and the latest Macbook has none (unless you count USB-C, which I don't because I don't have any USB-C devices). So buy a Macbook, your choices are to buy proprietary Thunderbolt devices, or adapters for your USB stuff.
Yea, and I like Netflix better. But Hulu has more current stuff, so it's a viable model. But including commercials, it's crap. Can't imagine who those people are that pay $8 /mo to watch commercials.
I am a web application developer.
Well that explains it...
At the worst case the bandwidth cost will be doubled.
Gross underestimate. Maybe minimum it will be doubled. Some sites have video ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, scroll-overs, and number media ads and a little block of text backed up by nothing but some tags and style sheets. Just like the typical magazine of the 1990's, many websites are about 70% ads. Unfortunately, that only counts page space - the bandwidth required by the ads are much higher than needed for the content. Only sites that serve lots of video as part of their content don't fall into that category, and then you also have to count the embedded video advertisements on front of the video content.
The whole ad-blocking movement is as counterproductive as it can be.
You have that backwards. It is the advertisers (you) that have created the market for ad-blockers. If the advertising didn't force users to dig through all the pop-ups, pop-unders, hunting for whatever that is playing sound, waiting forever for page loads, and all the other annoyances that the advertisers have foisted on the web, nobody would care about installing ad-blockers.
It's not users that need fixing - it's the advertisers. They created the problem. They need to fix it.
The best example is Flattr. Almost nobody use it, even though it is mostly targeted to technical people and it is a very easy and cheap way to support for example the open source products you use.
That's because there's no there there. Reddit uses a similar model (Reddit Gold), and it works just fine and lots of people use it. Some people (^) act like advertising is the thing and everything exists just to support it. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to be a marketer, learn to do it smarter. There are lots of ways to do that without resorting to beating up on your audience and demonizing people that try to fix the problem you created.
I think it is an irrevelant technical difference if the ad is coming from a google server or from a - maybe google - server leased by the web page creator.
Clearly you have no idea how the Web works, based on your incredibly ignorant response. It's not an "irrelevant technical difference" at all - it's the key issue fundamental to the entire argument.
now that the percentage of ad blocking users exploded I am sure that within one year a few web hosts start to proxy ads.
No, you're wrong, they will never do that - it will cost them in server hardware and bandwidth to host all that advertising. It would create massive logistical issues with advertiser billing (not to mention new vectors for click fraud).
I am afraid you will be the only one who will be happy with this solution.
I really don't care - as I already stated. There are several web sites that have already lost my business because the obtrusive annoyance of their ads is not worth putting up with to consume whatever "content" they have. Hulu eventually wised up and started offering an add-free subscription service. Too late for me, because I had already cancelled my subscription because of all the annoying un-skippable advertising.
You should stop posting on this topic - you're just going to embarrass yourself further.
There is a difference between not looking at the ad directly and blocking it.
Not really. I don't use adblock, but I do use NoScript. It won't run JavaScript in my browser unless I allow it. Usually I allow scripts for ONLY the website I'm visiting. In practice, that removes most of the ads - I never see them. So the content host isn't hosting an ad at all, and they are not included in their content. Instead, they are asking me to allow my browser to go to some other random site on the Internet and download that content. If you want to show me an ad on your site, then, fine, show me an ad on your site. But I'm not going somewhere else to fetch it.
If I remember well, devices which removed ads automatically was proven illegal.
You don't, and they weren't. They are just impractical in the US. In Japan, broadcasters are required to send markers in their stream to distinguish between advertising and content, and those devices are fairly popular there.
I moved to Sonarr to grab my TV.
LOL! You really had me going there for a minute. Actually, several hours ... as despite the fact that I found a lot about Sonarr, there was nothing that actually introduced it with "What problem is Sonarr designed to solve?" It turns out, not much. Looks like a UI for a bunch of files you've managed to acquire through other means (usenet or bittorrent), with other interfaces on top of those, clients to interface between Sonarr and the client on top of your source, and then some "indexers", whatever options there may be for that, which I never even got to looking into.
So ... seems to be nothing more than a pretty face on top of whatever files you've manage to store somewhere that were yanked from 3 or 4 other pieces of software and loaded into a directory. RTorrrent client? Oh, yea, it supports that! Now just add another interface on top (because Sonarr will only talk to a web-based interface on top of rtorrent), figure out how to get those communicating, and then ... I'm not really sure. Find a bunch of torrent sources for the show you want, throw them in there, and eventually, if it's populated, I guess Sonarr's "Add a series" feature will actually be able to find whatever files it want in whatever format it needs to add it to the list.
Yea, totally perfect replacement for WMC. _
http://windows.microsoft.com/e... disagrees with you. Windows 8 is supported until 2023, as long as you have the Windows 8.1 Update
Microsoft marketing. Try checking the actually methods they use to track their operating system and you'll see the truth.
You cant say Microsoft is no longer supporting Win8 in the title and later in the article clarify that they are supporting Win8.1, they are the same fucking thing, one just has more updates to it.
Not really - it's a different kernel, including boot loader and everything. You can't just say "it's more updates" - that would mean Windows 7 is the same as Windows 10 because "more updates".
I wrote a certification book on Windows 8 that then had to have tons of revisions for Windows 8.1 because we (and the publisher) decided it was not worth doing a production run for the Windows 8 manuals. Trust me, it's a different operating system.
Name another media company that went out of their way to develop a patent-free media codec that was independent and competitive with other codecs of the time? (Google Dirac)
There is nothing royalty-free about HEVC.
So what? Who cares? It doesn't matter.
H.265 is simply far too encumbered by "IP" costs and licensing restrictions to be of any use whatsoever. Sure, there are places (like the douchebags at BBC) who will decide to use it, but rational folks should run from it like the bubonic plague. Especially folks that create content. If you create something that uses H.265 as the master source, your copyright is worthless, because you content is now encumbered inside of format that requires you to pay fees if you want to extract it, convert it, distribute it, or even view it. "It can't really be that bad," you say. Sure, you can buy equipment and software that will do that for you, but part of your cost is the partial fee that the manufacturer is paying for licensing.
Someone have a chat with the BBC about putting resources into VP9 instead. It will save them and everyone else a lot of money, pain, lawyer fees and headaches into the future.
Appropriate quote from Politico on the US presidential campaign candidate:
Why do you need Windows Media Center for the CableCard? Who would make a piece of hardware with no support for any other media software?
It *works* with other software ... unless the cable company (or content providers) are transmitting channels / shows marked as either "copy once" or "copy none". These flags mean that the channel and any recording of them will ONLY play in a DRM "protected path". Microsoft's Windows "Play Ready" is the only descrambling method that will allow you to play those channels / shows or any recordings. There are some cable companies that have started adding DRM to almost ALL their channels. All the premium movie channels are protected. All the Nat Geo channels are protected. There are many more.
I would say complain to the FCC, but in spite of their initial move to require all TV Cable providers to support CableCard everywhere, they have now even allowed that requirement to expire, and have no interest in having the TV providers play nice with their customers (like NOT requiring $25-$50 in additional "cable box rental fees" to actually be able to WATCH the TV).
Unfortunately, Plex doesn't support encryped SDV cable channels or I'd have switched long ago (aka. when I got my CableCARD and already had XBMC installed I would have not installed Windows when it didn't work)
Yep. Same situation here. I'm experimenting with some other stuff, mainly the HDHomeRun DVR software. Unfortunately, most of their clients are not able to play anything but the "copy-freely" content. I've dumped most of the cable channels, but there are a few (NatGeo, which the wife watches a lot, comes to mind) that are still transmitted as DRM'd. For EVERY show. Supposedly the HDHomeRun Android client will play the DRM stuff, but the Kodi client still can't, and the Windows "View" client can't view the DVR recordings at all. So that stuff isn't ready to replace WMC yet.
I'm hopeful that there will be some Android TV devices coming out soon that will work. So far, there are none running Marshmallow (Android 6), which is the first version that can do hardware-based MPEG2 decoding. Without that, there is no way to watch live TV or anything recorded in WMC or HDHomeRun DVR.
Sure you can get a free education to become an artist.
But why would you want to study something your can't monetize?
It happens here in the US all the time! And often paid for with loans. Which can't be paid back, because there are only so many jobs for many of the useless degrees that state-supported colleges offer these days.
The OP's point is not that NOx isn't noxious, it's that it isn't persistent. The ozone created by sunlight on NOX is unstable and breaks down quickly. If we stopped pumping NOx into the atmosphere, it and its byproducts would all be gone in a matter of weeks. The same can't be said of CO2.
Actually, yes, it can. CO2 is recycled constantly. It's part of the natural cycle. The IPCC uses the Bern Carbon Cycle Model, others estimate shorter lifespans. The ranges are large - anywhere between 2 to 7 years or more - but these estimates rely heavily on dispersion rates, and the baselines which are driven by the prevalent natural consumers and producers of CO2.
That said, we already know the immediate deleterious effects of ground-level ozone on ALL life forms. Effects of greenhouse gasses on the global temperatures, not so much.
Why haven't you killed yourself yet, then, if that's how you feel?
What do you call 100,000 mass execution proponents performing mass suicide? A good start.
So this happened. Environmentalists have gotten so worked up about CO2 (which plants need to create FOOD) that they don't even care about toxic pollution any more. Apparently, killing, disease-causing smog is now preferable to a warmer (1 - 2 degrees) planet. Incredible.
No, see, NOxs are degraded by sunlight. They're not a problem for our great grandchildren. However, the CO2 coming out of your gasoline car and the refinery cracking diesel oil into gasoline is a major problem for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Transportation is a huge source of CO2. Diesel is, over the lifecycle, so much better for the environment that gasoline engines should be fined.
Are you serious? Yes, NoX is affected by sunlight - it creates ozone. Very unhealthy.
I cannot agree with you on this, and Europeans no longer do, either. Diesel engines create real pollution, and you seem to be saying it's okay to kill more people with that today than deal with some extra CO2, which is simply a part of the naturally occurring cycle of life (respiration/photosynthesis) on Earth. The marginal reduction in CO2 emissions is simply not worth the very high cost of damaging pollution - there is no way to justify it, just considering the health costs alone.
On slashdot, truth called troll.
The major trick, in humans, is that (so far as we know) there aren't a bunch of conveniently defined castes to work with.
It's actually much more complicated than that. We are still struggling on figuring out which human behaviors are defined genetically at all versus defined via environmental learning (the old nature vs. nurture question). Before you can start modifying human behavior through chemistry, you first need to identify which behaviors can actually be altered that way at all. And we're a long way from doing that.
This has less to do with macro economic than it does Federal-level financing in a society with a negative birth rate after the baby boomer generation. Boomers simply did not have enough children to support the ponzi schemes created by social security and the welfare state. Governments haven't dismantled immigration systems to support old people (they don't care about them), but to prop up the unsustainable central banking system which depends on constant growth and perpetual positive interest rates. These systems are based on debt instead of assets, and the only way to continue debt payments is perpetual growth, which requires an ever-increasing population of tax-paying workers.
inflation has gone up so much that you need two incomes to compensate for it.
Wrong. Inflation isn't one-way. The cost of everything goes up with inflation, including labor. You can't explain the disparity in work/lifestyle changes by simply blaming inflation - which will affect incomes just as much as expenditures.
medical expenses are sky rocketing because we have old people who need constant care, but can't pay for it.
Incorrect. Medial expenses grew so fast because of the dual issues of new, expensive "maintenance" medications (the pharmaceutical industry), and the non-payers utilizing the most expensive type of care (hospital emergency rooms) because it's the only place they could get treatment without insurance. To maintain, hospitals raised the rates for the paying customers to make up for the non-paying customers.
Car however keep going up. with base models of basic cars used to $12k in 2000, it is closer to $18k for the same model(mostly) now.
That's caused by the finance industry (banks, and central banking intervention in the free market). It's also caused by the reams of federal regulations requiring certain specifications for all cars. Ford, for instance, stopped making the "Aerostar" vans because they became illegal. There was no way to continue manufacturing them to meet the federal regs. (The Windstar was a horrible, poor substitute).
lastly before medicare. 60% of the population didn't have any health care. doctors are for the rich after all.
No, that's just complete bullshit - you have no idea WTF you're talking about. Doctors used to be community professionals that helped everyone, and people paid what and when they could. There just not as many entitled indigents demanding free care - people tried to pay their way.
Consider weev to be a stand-in for the folks in our community who I don't want to name because this would turn into a personal attack if I did. You probably know of them although certainly none are friends.
It's not a personal attack if you're just pointing out facts about certain behavior that any reasonable person would view as unacceptable. If your comments about these presumed "stand-in folks" would be considered personal attacks, then you are simply pointing out some subjective viewpoint in opposition to others' viewpoint.
In other words, this is obviously a non-issue.