I find it offensive that you have stated I might find something offensive. Obviously, "you" refers specifically to me, and therefore you must state that I cannot be offended, or I will continue to be offended.
I know you were being snarky, but the real answer is actually somewhat similar, since the Yuan is pegged to the dollar. The exchange rate will be the same when you go as it is now.
Only if your obscurity provides the key to opening the system. Using obscurity as an additional layer, rather than relying solely on it in places where knowledge would break all the security, is how to use it effectively.
People seem to conflate the two approaches a great deal, whereas there are ample areas to use obscurity in order to make systems harder to compromise. It's just not useful in every situation, but there are certainly areas it would be useful as an addition to other security measures. A lock isn't going to be of much use if you don't have a door.
There are 379 members of Congress with an average net worth in excess of $1,000,000. There are 92 with an average net worth in excess of $10,000,000. There are 14 with an average net worth in excess of $100,000,000.
DD-WRt has QOS settings, but they're function so horribly they may as well not even be there. That, and the hardware in most DD-WRt routers isn't capable of keeping up with more than basic functionality.
Those non-transparent packaged securities were never a good idea to be involved in. Nobody bothered to question the fundamentals, and they got screwed. Much of this has to do with how complicit the government is in allowing investment firms to do whatever the hell they want.
I am, by the way, completely opposed to corporations having rights since they are not people. There are many people who claim to be "free market" proponents who are amenable to allowing artificial entities to do whatever they want, which is not really a free market principle.
Not in the slightest. The right to life was specifically meant to protect individuals from actions that actively deprive one of their life, unless that deprivation is caused as the end result of due process. Nowhere was it even hinted that the right covered obligating others to go out of their way to provide services to extend another person's life, at least not in the Federal Constitution. States have much more leeway under the 10th Amendment.
Just because something is law doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal once too, and in the case of the draft, still is.
I'd rather be serious than be a dick just to be a dick. I know the convention here on/. is to not read follow-ups before posting (for redundancy, which your reply was), but it's not actually a requirement. That you went above and beyond after having it pointed out speaks volumes.
No, it's not done without Federal grants, but then it's nearly impossible to get through much of the legal maze and hurdles without expecting major projects to do so. The grants exist, so people apply for them. That said, I wouldn't say that the Federal government does the heavy lifting in this case. All of the real work is done by those who volunteer their time and effort to coordinate the effort and perform all of the medical procedures that are the backbone of the program. For the most part, the government acts as a silent partner, since they don't do anything but provide funding and income verification.
My major point though, is that there is a great deal that can be done at a level below the Federal government. Such things are also far more accountable to the people they directly impact, whereas pretty much anyone paying attention understands that there is really no accountability at the national level. I think the latter is one of the most important, and least recognized, issues that impact national versus state/local policies.
In large part, this is a return of money that originally came out of the community to begin with. Re-working the tax distribution could remove the need for Federal grants by keeping more money in states. The additional steps to redistribute it are a tremendous waste of time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere. Really, the states should be doing the heavy lifting and the Federal government should be filling in the cracks with things that actually require national coordination to accomplish.
If an organization that flies as far under the radar as Project Access can provide the kinds of services they do, think of what can be done if there was more focus put on those sorts of community organizations. It's really not much of a stretch to say more can probably be done with less if there was actually an effort made to promote access at the community level, rather than enriching entrenched special interests with mandatory compulsion to purchase their pre-existing services.
They actually do serve those eligible for Medicaid, prior to approval for it. They just require that people apply for Medicaid and continue coverage under that program if they are accepted. They serve as an immediate entry point to health care coverage prior to approval, even for those clearly eligible.
Actually, no. When health insurance becomes universally mandated, it becomes health assurance. There is no more risk pool.
With auto insurance, it is kept affordable by the vast majority of safe drivers and the ability of insurers to refuse to cover those who consistently cause accidents or engage in unsafe behavior. If an insurer cannot refuse coverage for someone that they can guarantee will exceed any payments that coveree makes, it is no longer insurance.
I'm not making a judgment on whether universal coverage is good or not in this post. Whether it is good or not is irrelevant. This is not, under any rational definition, health insurance.
I was referring to when armed mobs of people controlled polling places, which was the original reference. Something that's very not likely to happen again in the near future.
If that happens again, you can bet it'll be more than a handful of people.
It is a clarification immediately below the comment you replied to.
I'll quote since you're too lazy to click once: I should amend this slightly, since it's the most likely objection to be brought up: education has national requirements, but they are almost universally intentionally vague and left up to states and local communities to implement. Those states and local communities are also free to opt out of almost every one of them at the cost of losing national education funding. They are still legally allowed to though.
The ability to seek out care is. Nobody can legitimately prevent you from seeking it, much like nobody can legitimately prevent you from speaking your mind. Nobody has to enable your use of rights for you, though.
Yeah, I knew there would be a relatively limited number of exceptions to my statement. Listing the exceptions to it being state-enforced is a whole lot easier than the reverse though, which was the main point.
I'm not defending illegal behavior, if such occurred. I'm defending legal behavior that may have had a tangential negative impact on others.
Operating a business without any possible obstruction of the public spaces it is attached to is not a right. They have to share that public space with others who are behaving in an otherwise legal manner.
Yes, and it's one program operating mainly by word-of-mouth. The impediments against it are fairly large given the current political climate, and yet it continues to thrive and allow treatment for tens of thousands of individuals nationally.
The care in my city is provided by Project Access. It is open to absolutely anyone who cannot afford primary or specialty care.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it offensive that you have stated I might find something offensive. Obviously, "you" refers specifically to me, and therefore you must state that I cannot be offended, or I will continue to be offended.
Offensively yours,
Me
Exactly. Every occurrence of the phrase "the right of the people" indicates a "collective" right.
I know you were being snarky, but the real answer is actually somewhat similar, since the Yuan is pegged to the dollar. The exchange rate will be the same when you go as it is now.
Only if your obscurity provides the key to opening the system. Using obscurity as an additional layer, rather than relying solely on it in places where knowledge would break all the security, is how to use it effectively.
People seem to conflate the two approaches a great deal, whereas there are ample areas to use obscurity in order to make systems harder to compromise. It's just not useful in every situation, but there are certainly areas it would be useful as an addition to other security measures. A lock isn't going to be of much use if you don't have a door.
You've finally managed to say something amusing.
Depends on your definition of "rich."
There are 379 members of Congress with an average net worth in excess of $1,000,000.
There are 92 with an average net worth in excess of $10,000,000.
There are 14 with an average net worth in excess of $100,000,000.
There was nothing remotely humorous in any of your comments. I have a perfectly functional sense of humor.
DD-WRt has QOS settings, but they're function so horribly they may as well not even be there. That, and the hardware in most DD-WRt routers isn't capable of keeping up with more than basic functionality.
Educational statutes at the Federal level are not mandatory either. States can opt out, at the loss of Federal funding.
Education is mandatory in the same way that the Federal speed limit was mandatory: not, but expensive to ignore.
Those non-transparent packaged securities were never a good idea to be involved in. Nobody bothered to question the fundamentals, and they got screwed. Much of this has to do with how complicit the government is in allowing investment firms to do whatever the hell they want.
I am, by the way, completely opposed to corporations having rights since they are not people. There are many people who claim to be "free market" proponents who are amenable to allowing artificial entities to do whatever they want, which is not really a free market principle.
Not in the slightest. The right to life was specifically meant to protect individuals from actions that actively deprive one of their life, unless that deprivation is caused as the end result of due process. Nowhere was it even hinted that the right covered obligating others to go out of their way to provide services to extend another person's life, at least not in the Federal Constitution. States have much more leeway under the 10th Amendment.
Just because something is law doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal once too, and in the case of the draft, still is.
I'd rather be serious than be a dick just to be a dick. I know the convention here on /. is to not read follow-ups before posting (for redundancy, which your reply was), but it's not actually a requirement. That you went above and beyond after having it pointed out speaks volumes.
No, it's not done without Federal grants, but then it's nearly impossible to get through much of the legal maze and hurdles without expecting major projects to do so. The grants exist, so people apply for them. That said, I wouldn't say that the Federal government does the heavy lifting in this case. All of the real work is done by those who volunteer their time and effort to coordinate the effort and perform all of the medical procedures that are the backbone of the program. For the most part, the government acts as a silent partner, since they don't do anything but provide funding and income verification.
My major point though, is that there is a great deal that can be done at a level below the Federal government. Such things are also far more accountable to the people they directly impact, whereas pretty much anyone paying attention understands that there is really no accountability at the national level. I think the latter is one of the most important, and least recognized, issues that impact national versus state/local policies.
In large part, this is a return of money that originally came out of the community to begin with. Re-working the tax distribution could remove the need for Federal grants by keeping more money in states. The additional steps to redistribute it are a tremendous waste of time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere. Really, the states should be doing the heavy lifting and the Federal government should be filling in the cracks with things that actually require national coordination to accomplish.
If an organization that flies as far under the radar as Project Access can provide the kinds of services they do, think of what can be done if there was more focus put on those sorts of community organizations. It's really not much of a stretch to say more can probably be done with less if there was actually an effort made to promote access at the community level, rather than enriching entrenched special interests with mandatory compulsion to purchase their pre-existing services.
They actually do serve those eligible for Medicaid, prior to approval for it. They just require that people apply for Medicaid and continue coverage under that program if they are accepted. They serve as an immediate entry point to health care coverage prior to approval, even for those clearly eligible.
Actually, no. When health insurance becomes universally mandated, it becomes health assurance. There is no more risk pool.
With auto insurance, it is kept affordable by the vast majority of safe drivers and the ability of insurers to refuse to cover those who consistently cause accidents or engage in unsafe behavior. If an insurer cannot refuse coverage for someone that they can guarantee will exceed any payments that coveree makes, it is no longer insurance.
I'm not making a judgment on whether universal coverage is good or not in this post. Whether it is good or not is irrelevant. This is not, under any rational definition, health insurance.
Like almost every other "counter-example" given in the comments here, those are state laws.
Or Thailand. US-trained doctors, first-class amenities.
The only thing you don't get is malpractice coverage, so you only pay 1/10th the cost of the US.
And no, I wouldn't be in a situation to be gunned down by the police. I am far more creative than that. :)
I was referring to when armed mobs of people controlled polling places, which was the original reference. Something that's very not likely to happen again in the near future.
If that happens again, you can bet it'll be more than a handful of people.
It is a clarification immediately below the comment you replied to.
I'll quote since you're too lazy to click once:
I should amend this slightly, since it's the most likely objection to be brought up: education has national requirements, but they are almost universally intentionally vague and left up to states and local communities to implement. Those states and local communities are also free to opt out of almost every one of them at the cost of losing national education funding. They are still legally allowed to though.
Read the reply I made to my own post here. Already covered.
The ability to seek out care is. Nobody can legitimately prevent you from seeking it, much like nobody can legitimately prevent you from speaking your mind. Nobody has to enable your use of rights for you, though.
Spokane, WA
Yeah, I knew there would be a relatively limited number of exceptions to my statement. Listing the exceptions to it being state-enforced is a whole lot easier than the reverse though, which was the main point.
Yes, I am.
I'm not defending illegal behavior, if such occurred. I'm defending legal behavior that may have had a tangential negative impact on others.
Operating a business without any possible obstruction of the public spaces it is attached to is not a right. They have to share that public space with others who are behaving in an otherwise legal manner.
Yes, and it's one program operating mainly by word-of-mouth. The impediments against it are fairly large given the current political climate, and yet it continues to thrive and allow treatment for tens of thousands of individuals nationally.
The care in my city is provided by Project Access. It is open to absolutely anyone who cannot afford primary or specialty care.