I am an online retailer. I lost $8,000 in one season from credit card fraud. When the cards are stolen, the frauders use it at a store. The cardholder then does a chargeback. The bank will refund the cardholder and take it from the retailer, so the retailer assumes all risk. Many online sales have 15% margins from which you have to pay advertising and labor costs. A single fraudulent sale can take 10-20 legitimate sales just to break even! Most of the frauders are from countries like Vietnam, China etc. they will ship often to a US address and the cardholder is a US address as well. The only thing us retailers have to go by is the location of the IP address. If that's from a country other than the cardholder's that's a very strong signal that it's a fraudulent order. Size of order, fake phone number are also good signals. If you don't want an order flagged, then don't look like a frauder! Place your order from your actual IP address.
Would you like to block my purchase under these conditions?
1) My Internet IP address at work is about 1500 miles from my actual location at work. This is some sort of side-effect of how my employer (a very large corporation) has its connections to the Internet.
2) When I'm on vacation, perhaps 3000 miles from home, I play a game with friends and love it. I go online to buy it and have it shipped home so I can play after vacation.
I agree - no need to hide who you are when you go shopping. But you may want to hide your identity when you are writing something controversial as an AC.
Or anonymously use a stolen credit card in an online store.
But if you're having the goods shipped to you, doesn't that reveal at least WHERE you are?
The worse thing about a centralized system like healthcare.gov, is that it represents a tremendously juicy target for criminals of all kinds - from ID thieves to phishers that want some personal info to run a scam. Never mind this company, I'm not sure I trust ANYONE to develop a system that is secure against the number and complexity of attacks that will be made.
Well, if the Red states weren't so stubborn as to opt-out, at least we'd have 50 different systems.
How long before we hear calls to declare the whole EU as terrorist sympathisers?
As more of this comes out, I hope others join the EU and we start looking at a embargo on sharing information with the US until it learns.
I think Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News are already doing that.
They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.
I know, right? I've upgraded for free from Windows 3.1, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, and 8, not!
Hint for your anarcho-capitalist kneejerk playbook: "be open" isn't the kind of regulation that impedes a free market.
Hint for your kneejerk reaction - I am a flaming liberal. My point was that I was surprised that the anarcho-capitalists wanted more government regulation.
That's pretty impressive engineering. Think it allows Android to be installed on it?:)
The hardware could most likely run it, but since Apple locks the boot loader and prevents the user from changing the operating system this will not be possible. It is highly unfortunate that we don't have legislation that prevents this abusive behavior.
Slashdotter wants more governent regulation. Film at 11.
The question is whether reps should vote for what's for the best for everyone or for what their constituents voted them in for. Many of the GOP that started this were voted in on the promise to try and stop Obamacare no matter what it takes (which, in turn, is what won them the House to begin with)... so it turns out they're actually upholding their campaign promises.
The 2009 Federal Budget had a bottom line of $3.518T actual spending. The so-called 1% had a total adjusted gross income of $1.3T in 2009. If you tax them at 100%, that gets you about 4.5 months into the fiscal year, or around March 12th.
Math fail. No one is suggesting that only the super wealthy pay taxes.
The ironic thing is it should have gone to the lowest bidder, that's how the process works after all.
Um, no. Cost is only one factor. If I had bid $15M, I should have won by your logic. However, the government would evaluate me (as a one-man team) as being unable to complete the task.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the strong opposition is unfounded. Are you saying the opposition is not from a large portion of the population? Or are you saying that their opposition to this expansion of government power into people's personal lives is unfounded? If the first, you are wrong and merely need to look at various polls taken on the subject, those who oppose the ACA outnumber those who support it in every poll I have seen. If the latter, I am sorry you have such a low opinion of your own decision making ability.
The former. Yes, polls that use the "Obamacare" term show low support - especially when those polls are from rightwing shills like The Heritage Foundation or Fox News. Check out polls that actually ask about the details of ACA - you will see support far outnumbers oppostition.
The framers of the Constitution intended that if one group of people (in this case the leaders of the Democratic Party) managed to force a change to the government with strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace, the House of Representatives would be able to stop the change from going into effect by denying funding to implement the change.
Even if you assertion (regarding the Framers) were true, the "strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace" is unfounded.
Okay, I misunderstood. When you said they had the votes to take ACA out of the CR, I thought you meant to remove the contingency that ACA be funded.
The fact of the matter is that what is going on right now is going on exactly as the framers of the Constitution intended.
Yeah, right. You know the intent of the framers; just like everyone else thinks they know. I don't believe the framers intended for this majority of the majority nonsense.
Way I read it is this: Congress passed a budget, president then says "I don't like this budget. Give me what I want or government shuts down." So, government shuts down.
Not even close. House passed CR; Senate amended CR and sent it back to House; House will not bring that amended CR to vote, so government shut down. President hasn't even touched it - he can't.
Actually they do have the votes to take ACA out of the continuing resolution,... the problem is the Senate won't pass such a continuing resolution.
Then why won't Boner bring the CR to the floor that the Senate passed back to him? If the House passed it and the Senate didn't, it'd be a GOP win all the way.
But what sort of idiot would have interpreted the President's words to mean a panel made of people from outside government, without security clearances? He clearly meant people not currently inside the programs, who are already known and trusted by the government. Like, duh.
The funny part is that people who can't even understand the basics of the conversation are trying to call it out and blather on about how much wiser and more worldly they are.
So, basically you're admitting that by design, this law priced his current coverage out of his reach, and forced him to buy insurance through a government controlled market. Fuck you.
He's admitting no such thing. The employer has decided to jack up rates to squeeze employees while unemployment is high. That is SOP. The huge company I work for has been doing that for years. Last year, they BRAGGED about keeping healthcare cost increases to 2.5% while doubling the amount I have to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I am an online retailer. I lost $8,000 in one season from credit card fraud. When the cards are stolen, the frauders use it at a store. The cardholder then does a chargeback. The bank will refund the cardholder and take it from the retailer, so the retailer assumes all risk. Many online sales have 15% margins from which you have to pay advertising and labor costs. A single fraudulent sale can take 10-20 legitimate sales just to break even! Most of the frauders are from countries like Vietnam, China etc. they will ship often to a US address and the cardholder is a US address as well. The only thing us retailers have to go by is the location of the IP address. If that's from a country other than the cardholder's that's a very strong signal that it's a fraudulent order. Size of order, fake phone number are also good signals. If you don't want an order flagged, then don't look like a frauder! Place your order from your actual IP address.
Would you like to block my purchase under these conditions?
1) My Internet IP address at work is about 1500 miles from my actual location at work. This is some sort of side-effect of how my employer (a very large corporation) has its connections to the Internet.
2) When I'm on vacation, perhaps 3000 miles from home, I play a game with friends and love it. I go online to buy it and have it shipped home so I can play after vacation.
I agree - no need to hide who you are when you go shopping. But you may want to hide your identity when you are writing something controversial as an AC.
Or anonymously use a stolen credit card in an online store.
But if you're having the goods shipped to you, doesn't that reveal at least WHERE you are?
The worse thing about a centralized system like healthcare.gov, is that it represents a tremendously juicy target for criminals of all kinds - from ID thieves to phishers that want some personal info to run a scam. Never mind this company, I'm not sure I trust ANYONE to develop a system that is secure against the number and complexity of attacks that will be made.
Well, if the Red states weren't so stubborn as to opt-out, at least we'd have 50 different systems.
http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0544103343 There ya go, 600 footnotes included.
Except your citation isn't for what the AC posted, i.e. "The ACA has been a such a failure and promises to bankrupt the country."
How long before we hear calls to declare the whole EU as terrorist sympathisers? As more of this comes out, I hope others join the EU and we start looking at a embargo on sharing information with the US until it learns.
I think Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News are already doing that.
They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.
I know, right? I've upgraded for free from Windows 3.1, 98, ME, XP, Vista, 7, and 8, not!
Hint for your anarcho-capitalist kneejerk playbook: "be open" isn't the kind of regulation that impedes a free market.
Hint for your kneejerk reaction - I am a flaming liberal. My point was that I was surprised that the anarcho-capitalists wanted more government regulation.
That's pretty impressive engineering. Think it allows Android to be installed on it? :)
The hardware could most likely run it, but since Apple locks the boot loader and prevents the user from changing the operating system this will not be possible. It is highly unfortunate that we don't have legislation that prevents this abusive behavior.
Slashdotter wants more governent regulation. Film at 11.
The question is whether reps should vote for what's for the best for everyone or for what their constituents voted them in for. Many of the GOP that started this were voted in on the promise to try and stop Obamacare no matter what it takes (which, in turn, is what won them the House to begin with)... so it turns out they're actually upholding their campaign promises.
No. What won them the House is gerrymandering.
The 2009 Federal Budget had a bottom line of $3.518T actual spending. The so-called 1% had a total adjusted gross income of $1.3T in 2009. If you tax them at 100%, that gets you about 4.5 months into the fiscal year, or around March 12th.
Math fail. No one is suggesting that only the super wealthy pay taxes.
The ironic thing is it should have gone to the lowest bidder, that's how the process works after all.
Um, no. Cost is only one factor. If I had bid $15M, I should have won by your logic. However, the government would evaluate me (as a one-man team) as being unable to complete the task.
Do you really want your health care managed by a government that shuts down parks out of spite?
Do you really want a House that shuts down the government out of spite?
The way that the current Administration has handled the government shutdown causes me to not just dislike the ACA, but to fear it.
The government shutdown has nothing to do with the ACA, except in the minds of Republicans who are holding the government hostage.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that the strong opposition is unfounded. Are you saying the opposition is not from a large portion of the population? Or are you saying that their opposition to this expansion of government power into people's personal lives is unfounded? If the first, you are wrong and merely need to look at various polls taken on the subject, those who oppose the ACA outnumber those who support it in every poll I have seen. If the latter, I am sorry you have such a low opinion of your own decision making ability.
The former. Yes, polls that use the "Obamacare" term show low support - especially when those polls are from rightwing shills like The Heritage Foundation or Fox News. Check out polls that actually ask about the details of ACA - you will see support far outnumbers oppostition.
The framers of the Constitution intended that if one group of people (in this case the leaders of the Democratic Party) managed to force a change to the government with strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace, the House of Representatives would be able to stop the change from going into effect by denying funding to implement the change.
Even if you assertion (regarding the Framers) were true, the "strong opposition from a large percentage of the populace" is unfounded.
The fact of the matter is that what is going on right now is going on exactly as the framers of the Constitution intended.
Yeah, right. You know the intent of the framers; just like everyone else thinks they know. I don't believe the framers intended for this majority of the majority nonsense.
Way I read it is this: Congress passed a budget, president then says "I don't like this budget. Give me what I want or government shuts down." So, government shuts down.
Not even close. House passed CR; Senate amended CR and sent it back to House; House will not bring that amended CR to vote, so government shut down. President hasn't even touched it - he can't.
Actually they do have the votes to take ACA out of the continuing resolution,... the problem is the Senate won't pass such a continuing resolution.
Then why won't Boner bring the CR to the floor that the Senate passed back to him? If the House passed it and the Senate didn't, it'd be a GOP win all the way.
Surprised theres so many liberals on slashdot, you'd think intelilectials would want to keep their money and not give it all to the govt.
Irony meter pegged at 11.
... make us pay for some uninsured YOLO's emergency room visit...
Best phrase of the day.
But what sort of idiot would have interpreted the President's words to mean a panel made of people from outside government, without security clearances? He clearly meant people not currently inside the programs, who are already known and trusted by the government. Like, duh.
The funny part is that people who can't even understand the basics of the conversation are trying to call it out and blather on about how much wiser and more worldly they are.
+100
Open source compilers... that compile themselves.
My rates are predicted to triple on January 1st. Why is that? When has that happened before?
Whenever unemployment is high. When companies have perceived leverage, they tighten the screws. Always.
So, basically you're admitting that by design, this law priced his current coverage out of his reach, and forced him to buy insurance through a government controlled market. Fuck you.
He's admitting no such thing. The employer has decided to jack up rates to squeeze employees while unemployment is high. That is SOP. The huge company I work for has been doing that for years. Last year, they BRAGGED about keeping healthcare cost increases to 2.5% while doubling the amount I have to pay for it.
Maybe you should read up on how to make a funny joke.
Maybe you should read up and see that I wasn't the joke poster.