It's like saying, "Insider at Phillip Morris reveals that cigarettes are really bad for you and the company knew it all along!" p. Had the headline been "Snowden reveals what button to push to make the NSA cease to exist" I would have gotten a lot more interested.
You've seen the walmart story in the news, right? Temporary outage on welfare charge cards, Walmart's decision to honor the cards even though the balance was not coming up correctly, essentially making the card limit free? The WWZ-type stampede to clear off the shelves while the limits were removed, and the sudden abandonment of laden carts as far as the eye could see after the system went back online again? Wasn't that widespread fraud? Isn't the only difference between that and unreported fraud that someone caught it on camera phone?
If people currently on government assistance would do that en masse, why wouldn't they participate in other scams? En masse?
There have been many third party studies on code quality for large open source and closed source projects. Having worked on both kinds of projects I think you really overestimate the code quality of closed source. A lot of it is simply horrid.
And one of the reasons it *can* be horrid is that it's closed. There's no peer review, and certainly no customer review.
We used to get crap from a vendor that it'd cost huge amounts of money and resources to correct significant, obvious errors in their product. We would tell them "Send us the code. We'll fix it and send it back". And we meant it. For one issue, our admin team sent *them* code, saying "we think this is what you're doing. This other code is what you should be doing." (The problem was fixed, even after they said it'd be too much trouble.) The move to open source was precisely due to frustration with basic, stupid errors that we couldn't fix because we didn't have source.
> Bugs in open source software can be fixed by _developers_,
I have to disagree with this.:-)
I do not consider myself a developer. I'm a knowledgeable end user with some programming skills. Yet in the 25+ years I've been doing system administration full time, (let me pause a minute to consider how the time has flown... ok I'm good) I've submitted countless bug fixes to various open source packages. Not deep-dive stuff, usually, but stuff that affects how programs behave and hopefully saves someone else from having to puzzle out the same solution.
It's possible that in this day and age, with our new crop of young-uns, it's possible that admins only know how to push buttons anymore, and lack the training and alacrity to debug a C case statement to make one of the more obscure options actually work, figure out a library incompatibility, or realize the developer shouldn't have put "2>/dev/tty" in their package's init.d script, and if true that's kinda sad. But there's still, I think, some of us out there who can make things work *and* understand the code that allows us to do so.
I'm glad you brought that up. To carry the simile further, Fusion hasn't produced a functioning transistor, yet. To show the scales in parallel isn't accurate -- the Fusion progress scale is way WAY to the left, before the point where multiple working transistors on a substrate succeeded in any practical way.
I wonder why people keep comparing information processing with physical technologies as if there's some common ground? Hey, how fast was a 747 in 1980? How fast was it in 1969? How fast is it now? How fast do you think it'll be in 40 years?
Precisely. I have a friend who used to work in aerospace. I asked why he didn't look for a job in commercial spaceflight? He said it's mildly interesting that space flight is getting cheaper and more practical, but in a substantial way, it's not getting much better. The efficiency of the Saturn V engines was up in the high nineties (I forget the exact number he quoted) -- 1960s technology -- and there needed to be a quantum leap to something else -- a significantly new type of fuel, or engine, or something -- before spaceflight would again show the substantial gains we saw in the sixties. We're on the flat end of the current technology curve, and what we've accomplished already is pretty much it for the foreseeable future, with goals yet unrealized. It happens.
It would be nice if we could extrapolate development from the steep end of the curve, but it doesn't always work out.
You know, you should have gone back to Watson's 1943 statement "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". It would have been a more entertaining point.
Ah yes, the Fulton's Folly Theorem. A discovery/technology that was disparaged but went on to be wildly successful/true held as proof that some other discovery/technology currently being disparaged will also go on to be wildly successful/true. I think I first ran into that reasoning watching an interview with Eric Von Danikan in the seventies, where he asserted in response to his "Chariots of the Gods" detractors that "they laughed at Galileo, too".
Well, yes, "they" did. And "they" were wrong. This doesn't constitute proof that "they" are wrong in all cases.
Of course, practical fusion is not even in the same order of magnitude as Von Danikan's hairbrained theories. But pointing out that heavier than air flight or speeds beyond 15 miles per hour would never come to pass, does not mean that any particular thing considered so will be proven to be practical. Logic doesn't work that way.
But you're also right that the big advantage of open source, as anyone who has posted a code fix can say, is that it can be fixed. And the fix is scrutinized by other developers and knowledgeable users, so half-assed fixes are more likely to be called out. I submit that this is especially important with security issues, for several reasons.
How often have we had to endure for years (sometimes decades) bugs in commercial software that get passed on from one version to the next with absolutely no hope that the vendor will ever fix it?
> Oracle claims that TCO (total cost of ownership) goes up with the use of open source.
Sure. In related news, Weston Bakeries says that homemade bread is more expensive and not nearly as high quality as Wonder Bread.
> 'Government-sponsored community development approaches to software creation lack the financial incentives of commercial companies to produce low-defect, well-documented code.'
Yeah, because community development doesn't care about bugs because they can sell you the software and then sell you massively profitable service contracts to fix their products.
Forty years ago, I was a big proponent of fusion. My enthusiasm has petered out, sorry. I'm sure that science will be advanced by this project, but I've lost hope of seeing practical fusion power generation.
...Why Small-Scale Biomass Energy Projects Don't Need To Be a Solution To Climate Change
...because that was not the intent, nor is a deliverable, of biomass projects in third world countries.
...or in any country, really. Biomass doesn't have the capacity to be a significant, centralized part of an industrial country's energy usage. But biomass solutions are a good fit to generate power in the third world, and the technology deserves to be pursued for this purpose. (It's also a good solution for small communities in industrialized nations who want "off the grid" for whatever reason.)
That is really interesting, but what I actually meant was that my understanding was users could go to other websites to go shopping for health insurance - e.g. the websites of the insurance companies themselves - and purchase insurance directly without ever involving healthcare.gov
If my understanding was correct, then the claim by 'Austrian Anarchy' that "They have captured 100% of the market at the barrel of a gun." is false. My understanding may not be correct: I am not in the U.S.A., so I don't read as much about it as I would otherwise.
Ah, I see. I suppose it's possible. When I was a contractor, I choose not to have health insurance, and paid cash for medical and dental as the need arose. (I was somewhat surprised to discover that doctors were willing to heavily discount their prices when they discovered I was paying cash.)
I see a couple of potential problems. The first is that any policy that provides better (past some level) coverage than government issue pays a 40% tax on the difference. This has served to dry up many private insurance opportunities. (My current company has dropped both of their insurance choices due to this, starting next year.) So, what you *could* sign up for may be a bit more sparse than before this all started.
The second thing I'm seeing is doctors exiting the direct care marketplace rather than deal with the new environment. My daughter has a medical condition that we've spent a little over a year trying to diagnose. (Details aren't important, just that they don't know precisely what's wrong, yet.) During that time, we've had one doctor retire early and two drop private practice and go into research. (The good news is, we're getting multiple opinions. The bad news is, it's a pain in the butt to transfer her records find another doctor, and build a new relationship.) Although this is a paltry statistical pool, it tends to reinforce murmurings I've heard elsewhere -- that there will not only be more patients under Obamacare, but also fewer doctors. Perhaps, significantly fewer. That should be fun.
Not to worry. It is not like the customers of Healthcare.Gov are going to go shopping anywhere else. They have captured 100% of the market at the barrel of a gun. It is like the old American Telephone & Telegraph phone service, except they can go into your checking account for a billing dispute, or take your tax refund if you refuse to do business with them.
Sorry, you're just full of crap. Didn't you even read the summary of the summary about the bill? If you have insurance from *any* source, you don't need healthcare.gov. Even if you *don't* have healthcare now, you can still go to the state exchange... if you don't live in one of the Republican-run states that stamped their feet and refused to set up and exchange to help their own people.
We were informed a few weeks ago that both plans currently offered by my company will be eliminated rather than pay the 40% "cadillac tax". So it looks like I'll be signing up soon, or attempting to. Show of hands -- anyone else in that situation?
And here I was thinking people could check the prices of insurance directly on the website of the insurance providers and purchase directly if they preferred, removing healthcare.gov from the equation...
Apparently, that (browsing costs) was specifically not part of the design. To paraphrase Ms. Pelosi, you had to sign up for it in order to see what's in it. The added cycles required to check your information against several types of subsidies before revealing the price was apparently a major contributor to the crashing.
> The upshot though is that people like that are in the tiny minority
Are they? Really? Are there metrics in place to estimate the percentage of unreported government assistance fraud? (I don't use "welfare" because there are many types of government assistance, and to avoid the emotional baggage of "welfare cheat".)
I've not heard of such a statistic, but I read the paper, as I trust you do, and I observe that people who want something for nothing, be it embezzlement, tax fraud or robbing a liquor store. Why would such a person not run an entitlement scam? Because scams are hard? They can be, but there are plenty of examples of other complicated scams being perpetrated. Do people think "I'd rob this 7-11 to get my crack money, but cheating on government entitlements, that's messed up"? Is there some agreement amongst thieves that we may strip cars and sell the parts, but we'd never collect an unjustified government check, no sir, because we have our pride? How does that work?
It's possible that you're right, that people like that really are a tiny minority, and most of the government funds we're talking about here are justly distributed. But how would we know? Looking at human nature, as exemplified by reported crimes, it seems likely that a significant number of people might at least *try* to scam the system. For one thing, you're less likely to be shot in the act.
If you have in depth knowledge of fraud and have not reported it, you are part of the problem. I would love to see some sort of articles or anything to indicate some truth to your anecdote. I'm sure you're view is not slanted or in any way colored by emotion.
Unfortunately there's no reference article to point to for an undiscovered welfare cheat, else I would included it. Yes, I am aware of the situation, and I have not reported it. I'm really not sure it'll do any good, and it will give her additional reasons to harass me. Think about anyone else you know of in this kind of situation -- how often are the family reluctant to report a crime, when they're not sure the authorities will take any meaningful action, and they *are* sure that the act of reporting will get back to the miscreant?
OK, your sister is a welfare cheat. Report her to the relevant authorities and be done with it. Some people actually need help, and scrapping the whole system because a few people are taking advantage of it will take a lot of people who are already close to the edge, and shove them the rest of the way.
See an earlier response. I don't think I ever said "scrap the whole system", if I did, please point out where I said that and I'd be happy to apologize. What I'm saying in response to OP is that statistics are misleading -- that demonstrably at least some listed as "looking for work" or "needing help" aren't really. The system really needs a thorough cleaning up, and better processes in place. People who really need help, especially temporary help, should be able to get it without having to jump through flaming hoops. People who are trying to game the system should be shut down. If nothing else, eliminating some of the cheats would give the system more credibility.
> We need to find tools to separate the abusers from those who use the system to get back on their feet.
Thank you. Does everyone hear that? This is the real point. Not that the system needs to be scrapped, but that real, effective controls are needed. So that, if you're willing to work and need help, you can get it easily. But if you refuse to work, or try gaming the system, we may not let you starve but your existence will be painful.
A good friend of mine is a social worker, and her job is to help people (disabled, abused) who want to get off government assistance and get back to work, find some meaning in their lives. The woman is a saint. Often she has to battle the system she's supposed to be working for. She was in tears recently, because in an interview her client (who wanted to work) was being treated like an eight year old, not able to hold an opinion or speak for himself, by the other government representatives present. He was being impeded from getting off government assistance by the very people who are *supposed* to be trying to get him back on his feet. One could speculate on the reasons this would happen, but it needs to stop.
You can report this type of fraud to your state. Most of the relevant federal URL's are unavailable and the following GAO site is only for federal contracts. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
You know, that's a good point. I've told myself that it's not my responsibility, and I'm reluctant to give her more ammunition in her feud with me. On the other hand, I'm a believer in not complaining about something unless you're willing to do something about it. So perhaps I should.
i hated needles as a kid, and STILL hate needles. i almost never get anything with a needle unless i absolutely have to. ill generally take the flu over a vaccine.
Then you've probably never really had the flu.
Oh, and before you wound up completely out of action for a week except to grab the trash can near the bed when your stomach tries to turn itself inside out and escape your body via your throat, and you have spasms in abodmen muscles you never knew you had, you've probably helped spread the disease to who knows how many others.
Do like I do, look the other way and accept that there's going to be some momentary pain.
I've slept on the floor next to the toilet. And I still don't want the shot.
These things are true. (I'm sorry you have to deal with Comcast.) My response is:
Hulu
Netflix
Illegal downloads
In other words, do whatever one can to avoid having to pay for cable. It's a crap deal in this day and age. A business model that's way past its prime.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like saying, "Insider at Phillip Morris reveals that cigarettes are really bad for you and the company knew it all along!"
p.
Had the headline been "Snowden reveals what button to push to make the NSA cease to exist" I would have gotten a lot more interested.
You've seen the walmart story in the news, right? Temporary outage on welfare charge cards, Walmart's decision to honor the cards even though the balance was not coming up correctly, essentially making the card limit free? The WWZ-type stampede to clear off the shelves while the limits were removed, and the sudden abandonment of laden carts as far as the eye could see after the system went back online again? Wasn't that widespread fraud? Isn't the only difference between that and unreported fraud that someone caught it on camera phone?
If people currently on government assistance would do that en masse, why wouldn't they participate in other scams? En masse?
There have been many third party studies on code quality for large open source and closed source projects. Having worked on both kinds of projects I think you really overestimate the code quality of closed source. A lot of it is simply horrid.
And one of the reasons it *can* be horrid is that it's closed. There's no peer review, and certainly no customer review.
We used to get crap from a vendor that it'd cost huge amounts of money and resources to correct significant, obvious errors in their product. We would tell them "Send us the code. We'll fix it and send it back". And we meant it. For one issue, our admin team sent *them* code, saying "we think this is what you're doing. This other code is what you should be doing." (The problem was fixed, even after they said it'd be too much trouble.) The move to open source was precisely due to frustration with basic, stupid errors that we couldn't fix because we didn't have source.
> Bugs in open source software can be fixed by _developers_,
I have to disagree with this. :-)
I do not consider myself a developer. I'm a knowledgeable end user with some programming skills. Yet in the 25+ years I've been doing system administration full time, (let me pause a minute to consider how the time has flown... ok I'm good) I've submitted countless bug fixes to various open source packages. Not deep-dive stuff, usually, but stuff that affects how programs behave and hopefully saves someone else from having to puzzle out the same solution.
It's possible that in this day and age, with our new crop of young-uns, it's possible that admins only know how to push buttons anymore, and lack the training and alacrity to debug a C case statement to make one of the more obscure options actually work, figure out a library incompatibility, or realize the developer shouldn't have put "2> /dev/tty" in their package's init.d script, and if true that's kinda sad. But there's still, I think, some of us out there who can make things work *and* understand the code that allows us to do so.
I wonder where the 3D printers fans will be in 40 years when not a single of their revolutionary predictions will have come to pass?
<1980>
I wonder where the microprocessor fans will be in 40 years when not a single of their revolutionary predictions will have come to pass?
</1980>
Hey, I wonder whether you'll be back here in 40 years to admit you were wrong? I'd better bookmark this story.
It's funny that you say that since fusion performance has been increasing faster than Moore's law.
I'm glad you brought that up. To carry the simile further, Fusion hasn't produced a functioning transistor, yet. To show the scales in parallel isn't accurate -- the Fusion progress scale is way WAY to the left, before the point where multiple working transistors on a substrate succeeded in any practical way.
(Yeesh. Mix metaphors much?)
I wonder why people keep comparing information processing with physical technologies as if there's some common ground? Hey, how fast was a 747 in 1980? How fast was it in 1969? How fast is it now? How fast do you think it'll be in 40 years?
Precisely. I have a friend who used to work in aerospace. I asked why he didn't look for a job in commercial spaceflight? He said it's mildly interesting that space flight is getting cheaper and more practical, but in a substantial way, it's not getting much better. The efficiency of the Saturn V engines was up in the high nineties (I forget the exact number he quoted) -- 1960s technology -- and there needed to be a quantum leap to something else -- a significantly new type of fuel, or engine, or something -- before spaceflight would again show the substantial gains we saw in the sixties. We're on the flat end of the current technology curve, and what we've accomplished already is pretty much it for the foreseeable future, with goals yet unrealized. It happens.
It would be nice if we could extrapolate development from the steep end of the curve, but it doesn't always work out.
You know, you should have gone back to Watson's 1943 statement "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers". It would have been a more entertaining point.
Ah yes, the Fulton's Folly Theorem. A discovery/technology that was disparaged but went on to be wildly successful/true held as proof that some other discovery/technology currently being disparaged will also go on to be wildly successful/true. I think I first ran into that reasoning watching an interview with Eric Von Danikan in the seventies, where he asserted in response to his "Chariots of the Gods" detractors that "they laughed at Galileo, too".
Well, yes, "they" did. And "they" were wrong. This doesn't constitute proof that "they" are wrong in all cases.
Of course, practical fusion is not even in the same order of magnitude as Von Danikan's hairbrained theories. But pointing out that heavier than air flight or speeds beyond 15 miles per hour would never come to pass, does not mean that any particular thing considered so will be proven to be practical. Logic doesn't work that way.
Well, that would be exciting.
You're right.
But you're also right that the big advantage of open source, as anyone who has posted a code fix can say, is that it can be fixed. And the fix is scrutinized by other developers and knowledgeable users, so half-assed fixes are more likely to be called out. I submit that this is especially important with security issues, for several reasons.
How often have we had to endure for years (sometimes decades) bugs in commercial software that get passed on from one version to the next with absolutely no hope that the vendor will ever fix it?
> Oracle claims that TCO (total cost of ownership) goes up with the use of open source.
Sure. In related news, Weston Bakeries says that homemade bread is more expensive and not nearly as high quality as Wonder Bread.
> 'Government-sponsored community development approaches to software creation lack the financial incentives of commercial companies to produce low-defect, well-documented code.'
Yeah, because community development doesn't care about bugs because they can sell you the software and then sell you massively profitable service contracts to fix their products.
Hey.... Waaaait a minute!
In 2130 it'll only be 20 years away!
Forty years ago, I was a big proponent of fusion. My enthusiasm has petered out, sorry. I'm sure that science will be advanced by this project, but I've lost hope of seeing practical fusion power generation.
an one-party system
I think we've already got this one.
That is really interesting, but what I actually meant was that my understanding was users could go to other websites to go shopping for health insurance - e.g. the websites of the insurance companies themselves - and purchase insurance directly without ever involving healthcare.gov
If my understanding was correct, then the claim by 'Austrian Anarchy' that "They have captured 100% of the market at the barrel of a gun." is false. My understanding may not be correct: I am not in the U.S.A., so I don't read as much about it as I would otherwise.
Ah, I see. I suppose it's possible. When I was a contractor, I choose not to have health insurance, and paid cash for medical and dental as the need arose. (I was somewhat surprised to discover that doctors were willing to heavily discount their prices when they discovered I was paying cash.)
I see a couple of potential problems. The first is that any policy that provides better (past some level) coverage than government issue pays a 40% tax on the difference. This has served to dry up many private insurance opportunities. (My current company has dropped both of their insurance choices due to this, starting next year.) So, what you *could* sign up for may be a bit more sparse than before this all started.
The second thing I'm seeing is doctors exiting the direct care marketplace rather than deal with the new environment. My daughter has a medical condition that we've spent a little over a year trying to diagnose. (Details aren't important, just that they don't know precisely what's wrong, yet.) During that time, we've had one doctor retire early and two drop private practice and go into research. (The good news is, we're getting multiple opinions. The bad news is, it's a pain in the butt to transfer her records find another doctor, and build a new relationship.) Although this is a paltry statistical pool, it tends to reinforce murmurings I've heard elsewhere -- that there will not only be more patients under Obamacare, but also fewer doctors. Perhaps, significantly fewer. That should be fun.
Not to worry. It is not like the customers of Healthcare.Gov are going to go shopping anywhere else. They have captured 100% of the market at the barrel of a gun. It is like the old American Telephone & Telegraph phone service, except they can go into your checking account for a billing dispute, or take your tax refund if you refuse to do business with them.
Sorry, you're just full of crap. Didn't you even read the summary of the summary about the bill? If you have insurance from *any* source, you don't need healthcare.gov. Even if you *don't* have healthcare now, you can still go to the state exchange... if you don't live in one of the Republican-run states that stamped their feet and refused to set up and exchange to help their own people.
We were informed a few weeks ago that both plans currently offered by my company will be eliminated rather than pay the 40% "cadillac tax". So it looks like I'll be signing up soon, or attempting to. Show of hands -- anyone else in that situation?
And here I was thinking people could check the prices of insurance directly on the website of the insurance providers and purchase directly if they preferred, removing healthcare.gov from the equation...
Apparently, that (browsing costs) was specifically not part of the design. To paraphrase Ms. Pelosi, you had to sign up for it in order to see what's in it. The added cycles required to check your information against several types of subsidies before revealing the price was apparently a major contributor to the crashing.
> The upshot though is that people like that are in the tiny minority
Are they? Really? Are there metrics in place to estimate the percentage of unreported government assistance fraud? (I don't use "welfare" because there are many types of government assistance, and to avoid the emotional baggage of "welfare cheat".)
I've not heard of such a statistic, but I read the paper, as I trust you do, and I observe that people who want something for nothing, be it embezzlement, tax fraud or robbing a liquor store. Why would such a person not run an entitlement scam? Because scams are hard? They can be, but there are plenty of examples of other complicated scams being perpetrated. Do people think "I'd rob this 7-11 to get my crack money, but cheating on government entitlements, that's messed up"? Is there some agreement amongst thieves that we may strip cars and sell the parts, but we'd never collect an unjustified government check, no sir, because we have our pride? How does that work?
It's possible that you're right, that people like that really are a tiny minority, and most of the government funds we're talking about here are justly distributed. But how would we know? Looking at human nature, as exemplified by reported crimes, it seems likely that a significant number of people might at least *try* to scam the system. For one thing, you're less likely to be shot in the act.
If you have in depth knowledge of fraud and have not reported it, you are part of the problem. I would love to see some sort of articles or anything to indicate some truth to your anecdote. I'm sure you're view is not slanted or in any way colored by emotion.
Unfortunately there's no reference article to point to for an undiscovered welfare cheat, else I would included it. Yes, I am aware of the situation, and I have not reported it. I'm really not sure it'll do any good, and it will give her additional reasons to harass me. Think about anyone else you know of in this kind of situation -- how often are the family reluctant to report a crime, when they're not sure the authorities will take any meaningful action, and they *are* sure that the act of reporting will get back to the miscreant?
OK, your sister is a welfare cheat. Report her to the relevant authorities and be done with it. Some people actually need help, and scrapping the whole system because a few people are taking advantage of it will take a lot of people who are already close to the edge, and shove them the rest of the way.
See an earlier response. I don't think I ever said "scrap the whole system", if I did, please point out where I said that and I'd be happy to apologize. What I'm saying in response to OP is that statistics are misleading -- that demonstrably at least some listed as "looking for work" or "needing help" aren't really. The system really needs a thorough cleaning up, and better processes in place. People who really need help, especially temporary help, should be able to get it without having to jump through flaming hoops. People who are trying to game the system should be shut down. If nothing else, eliminating some of the cheats would give the system more credibility.
> We need to find tools to separate the abusers from those who use the system to get back on their feet.
Thank you. Does everyone hear that? This is the real point. Not that the system needs to be scrapped, but that real, effective controls are needed. So that, if you're willing to work and need help, you can get it easily. But if you refuse to work, or try gaming the system, we may not let you starve but your existence will be painful.
A good friend of mine is a social worker, and her job is to help people (disabled, abused) who want to get off government assistance and get back to work, find some meaning in their lives. The woman is a saint. Often she has to battle the system she's supposed to be working for. She was in tears recently, because in an interview her client (who wanted to work) was being treated like an eight year old, not able to hold an opinion or speak for himself, by the other government representatives present. He was being impeded from getting off government assistance by the very people who are *supposed* to be trying to get him back on his feet. One could speculate on the reasons this would happen, but it needs to stop.
You can report this type of fraud to your state. Most of the relevant federal URL's are unavailable and the following GAO site is only for federal contracts.
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
You know, that's a good point. I've told myself that it's not my responsibility, and I'm reluctant to give her more ammunition in her feud with me. On the other hand, I'm a believer in not complaining about something unless you're willing to do something about it. So perhaps I should.
i hated needles as a kid, and STILL hate needles. i almost never get anything with a needle unless i absolutely have to. ill generally take the flu over a vaccine.
Then you've probably never really had the flu.
Oh, and before you wound up completely out of action for a week except to grab the trash can near the bed when your stomach tries to turn itself inside out and escape your body via your throat, and you have spasms in abodmen muscles you never knew you had, you've probably helped spread the disease to who knows how many others.
Do like I do, look the other way and accept that there's going to be some momentary pain.
I've slept on the floor next to the toilet. And I still don't want the shot.
Luckily, she's a statistical minority. She's only your sister, not mine.
Agreed. I wouldn't wish her on anyone. But I'm not so sure people like her, (not just her) are a statistical minority. I'd like to think so.
These things are true. (I'm sorry you have to deal with Comcast.) My response is:
Hulu
Netflix
Illegal downloads
In other words, do whatever one can to avoid having to pay for cable. It's a crap deal in this day and age. A business model that's way past its prime.