I rarely had issues with FF, Safari, OTOH.... Chrome is inherently unusable as a browser, it's more a send all your web browsing history to google and search if it doesn't think the *valid* hostname resolves. Not to mention that viewing a self-signed certificate is non-intuitive, among other things.
The biggest thing here is that Firefox doesn't need FB (or any) social integration. So why add it? As an add-on, sure, go for it. But not as part of the core.
Exactly. And personally I hope she succeeds with her lawsuit. It would be even better if it results in an injunction on H1Bs for Infosys or in general.
That's exactly what it did - JBIG - compression algorithm. Why on earth would a scanner be using a compression algorithm? Memory is cheap, do a pixel scan and send me that, let me deal with compressing it, if I want to.
If you have a milling machine, you can cut the blank itself and bypass the whole "get the blank from the store". If you've got the right kind of machine, you can do this in a single operation and get a finished copy. But for a one-off operation, that's probably not going to be cost effective.
Your comment was universal care (I agree, but we don't have this and at this point probably never will as they couldn't pass it with a super majority in both houses) and payment based on outcomes. What does that mean? Heart attack patient goes in - dies - no payment? Lives, the hospital gets $50K? You gave nothing to discuss.
The biggest problem facing geeks.com was that the parts market bottomed, as did the wholesale market. When you can buy a brand new PC complete or by parts for less than $300, there's not a lot of room for anything remotely usable for geeks.com's target audience. And if you haven't heard of them, you weren't putting together your own systems 8-17 years ago.
I don't know why you resist posted rates. The benefits are obvious. You're making the assumption that a Doc will then perform inadequately because of rates. Diagnostic office visits already have a relatively fixed cost, why not post them? As for tests, the doc can order appropriate tests for each patient, all at posted rates. Posted rates don't affect your treatment, they do affect what you pay versus patient X with different or no insurance.
It's apparent you've never seen the galactic sized joke of a modern US hospital bill, especially if you get hold of a bill for an uninsured person versus the actual bill. It'd be hilarious, if it weren't so flagrantly wrong. I have, and the numbers are ridiculous. a more than 7 fold difference for a specific insurance over none, about 5 fold for a second insurance, and they'd be good sports and settle cash for about 60% of the original bill, still 4 times the best insurance rate. why such massive differences, if the hospital can make a profit at the lowest price point, why charge others 7 times that amount? That's gouging under the best of circumstances, and it charges the uninsured for... perhaps subsidizing the insured?
Posted rates prevent that, and it's the same arguments used against body repair shops and the auto industry decades ago. The addition to law preventing insurance from deciding what provider to go to also separated their interests and overall seems to have made a more competitive market. Isn't it time to pull the health insurance industry at least into the the 1980s?
That would follow - why would he give you a colonoscopy for a sinus infection? The point again, that you're diverting from is if we both have sinus infections, give the same description and have the same symptoms, then the treatment cost should be the same (ie, same procedures). If you instead have IBS, well, you have better have a different procedure than I, but it should cost the same as any other colonoscopy given to any other IBS sufferer. That's one thing that posted rates do. Another is to let you know what you're going to owe before going through the process.
Who the hell has been trusting Google since they did their IPO? That was pretty much the end of Google's "do no evil" mantra, if it even applied at that time which I highly doubt. I haven't "used" my gmail accounts in a long time, except for a new work account, which is work only. Can't get out of that one.
Because GMO as practiced by Monsanto is inherently bad? Mixing random genetic material into our food supply is not exactly a smart thing IMNSHO.
You may disagree. That's fine. I prefer my "natural organic" to be exactly both of those. If, however, by GMO you mean looking through the current set of genes in a plant and creating those minor mutations that would occur naturally randomly anyways, that's a different story. I'm certainly not an adherent of endless cross-polination to get a maybe result - that we can do via manipulation and short-circuit the process and waste less time. And I'm not sure the focus should be on agricultural improvement as much as perhaps reducing the explosive population growth, at least until there's somewhere to grow into. Endless megacities or hive structures are not overly appealing. There is no reason that we can't maintain a largely stable population on this planet that can be fed and housed without utilizing every square mm for those purposes.
just like car repair shops offer worse repairs? Or is it that the "worse" ones offer lower rates? My point is that Dr K charge you and me both the same posted rate, regardless of who we are or have as insurance. No more "in / out network" crap. That allows insurance companies to go the same route as car insurance for a whole host of issues/procedures. They will have to handle emergencies much as they do now. That levels the playing field for all. Surgeries will be the same - much as car repairs are the same. If hospital 'A' chooses gold plated tools, well, that's something you'll have to pay for, for non-emergency care, much like the dealer's body shop vs Bob's corner body and paint.
Incorrect. Something can be inherently unfixable: passing beyond the event horizon of a black hole, for instance. Too stupid to fix: the GP providing a constructive post.
The answer is "posted rates" much like car repair shops. All service providers have to post their rates, and that's the price for all. I know that puts a huge dent in insurers who like to negotiate back door deals, but it levels the playing field for all. Insurance and providers shouldn't mingle anyways, it an inherent conflict of interest.
There is no subsidizing, the trailers are usually from the company releasing the movie. They'd be paying themselves. And how does that explain a $35 release day and $10 5 months from now pricing? Oh, the real price is $10? Amazing.
There are people who PREFER to view content on non-Internet-connected devices to avoid tracking.
I'd say #2 is a bigger issue than #1, for those that are connected. There's another reason to prefer to view content on non-internet-connected devices: the ability to view any time, even when the internet is down or the 'friendly DRM" site is down or gone.
When I buy content, I expect to own it like a book. The damn thing is mine, and I can view it whenever I want. If I wanted a "rental" I'd have gone to blockbuster or a movie theater.
I'd agree - because when I buy a disk I 1) don't want to wait 5 minutes for it to start up 2) don't want to be pestered by the MPAA advert (don't copy this or you will be given life in prison) for 20s nor the 25 trailers that on some disks you can't even skip through, much less go directly to the menu, or a host of other issues. I bought this, I'd like to cut out all the other crap and just access the movie please. I'd say anyone that's seen a HTPC in action will quickly lose patience with a BD player.
Slashdot Mirror
I rarely had issues with FF, Safari, OTOH.... Chrome is inherently unusable as a browser, it's more a send all your web browsing history to google and search if it doesn't think the *valid* hostname resolves. Not to mention that viewing a self-signed certificate is non-intuitive, among other things.
The biggest thing here is that Firefox doesn't need FB (or any) social integration. So why add it? As an add-on, sure, go for it. But not as part of the core.
Exactly. And personally I hope she succeeds with her lawsuit. It would be even better if it results in an injunction on H1Bs for Infosys or in general.
That's exactly what it did - JBIG - compression algorithm. Why on earth would a scanner be using a compression algorithm? Memory is cheap, do a pixel scan and send me that, let me deal with compressing it, if I want to.
Trackpad or touch screen. Same for the keyboard.
If you have a milling machine, you can cut the blank itself and bypass the whole "get the blank from the store". If you've got the right kind of machine, you can do this in a single operation and get a finished copy. But for a one-off operation, that's probably not going to be cost effective.
We used to think passworded zip files were secure and unhackable, remember?
Apparently you did...
Your comment was universal care (I agree, but we don't have this and at this point probably never will as they couldn't pass it with a super majority in both houses) and payment based on outcomes. What does that mean? Heart attack patient goes in - dies - no payment? Lives, the hospital gets $50K? You gave nothing to discuss.
The biggest problem facing geeks.com was that the parts market bottomed, as did the wholesale market. When you can buy a brand new PC complete or by parts for less than $300, there's not a lot of room for anything remotely usable for geeks.com's target audience. And if you haven't heard of them, you weren't putting together your own systems 8-17 years ago.
I don't know why you resist posted rates. The benefits are obvious. You're making the assumption that a Doc will then perform inadequately because of rates. Diagnostic office visits already have a relatively fixed cost, why not post them? As for tests, the doc can order appropriate tests for each patient, all at posted rates. Posted rates don't affect your treatment, they do affect what you pay versus patient X with different or no insurance.
It's apparent you've never seen the galactic sized joke of a modern US hospital bill, especially if you get hold of a bill for an uninsured person versus the actual bill. It'd be hilarious, if it weren't so flagrantly wrong. I have, and the numbers are ridiculous. a more than 7 fold difference for a specific insurance over none, about 5 fold for a second insurance, and they'd be good sports and settle cash for about 60% of the original bill, still 4 times the best insurance rate. why such massive differences, if the hospital can make a profit at the lowest price point, why charge others 7 times that amount? That's gouging under the best of circumstances, and it charges the uninsured for... perhaps subsidizing the insured?
Posted rates prevent that, and it's the same arguments used against body repair shops and the auto industry decades ago. The addition to law preventing insurance from deciding what provider to go to also separated their interests and overall seems to have made a more competitive market. Isn't it time to pull the health insurance industry at least into the the 1980s?
I'd have to agree here - multi-thousand maybe, a million lines? Not a chance unless it's an academic exercise which does nothing useful.
That would follow - why would he give you a colonoscopy for a sinus infection? The point again, that you're diverting from is if we both have sinus infections, give the same description and have the same symptoms, then the treatment cost should be the same (ie, same procedures). If you instead have IBS, well, you have better have a different procedure than I, but it should cost the same as any other colonoscopy given to any other IBS sufferer. That's one thing that posted rates do. Another is to let you know what you're going to owe before going through the process.
Who the hell has been trusting Google since they did their IPO? That was pretty much the end of Google's "do no evil" mantra, if it even applied at that time which I highly doubt. I haven't "used" my gmail accounts in a long time, except for a new work account, which is work only. Can't get out of that one.
Because GMO as practiced by Monsanto is inherently bad? Mixing random genetic material into our food supply is not exactly a smart thing IMNSHO.
You may disagree. That's fine. I prefer my "natural organic" to be exactly both of those. If, however, by GMO you mean looking through the current set of genes in a plant and creating those minor mutations that would occur naturally randomly anyways, that's a different story. I'm certainly not an adherent of endless cross-polination to get a maybe result - that we can do via manipulation and short-circuit the process and waste less time. And I'm not sure the focus should be on agricultural improvement as much as perhaps reducing the explosive population growth, at least until there's somewhere to grow into. Endless megacities or hive structures are not overly appealing. There is no reason that we can't maintain a largely stable population on this planet that can be fed and housed without utilizing every square mm for those purposes.
That an assertion, not a fact. Right now, if you're not in network - you're getting charged double anyways, so what's your point?
just like car repair shops offer worse repairs? Or is it that the "worse" ones offer lower rates? My point is that Dr K charge you and me both the same posted rate, regardless of who we are or have as insurance. No more "in / out network" crap. That allows insurance companies to go the same route as car insurance for a whole host of issues/procedures. They will have to handle emergencies much as they do now. That levels the playing field for all. Surgeries will be the same - much as car repairs are the same. If hospital 'A' chooses gold plated tools, well, that's something you'll have to pay for, for non-emergency care, much like the dealer's body shop vs Bob's corner body and paint.
No problem, we'll just bring back some Jurassic herbivores.
Hopefully they will not allow this in GMO crops.
HR benefits the employees when not benefitting the employees harms the company (like lawsuits, etc)
Incorrect. Something can be inherently unfixable: passing beyond the event horizon of a black hole, for instance. Too stupid to fix: the GP providing a constructive post.
The answer is "posted rates" much like car repair shops. All service providers have to post their rates, and that's the price for all. I know that puts a huge dent in insurers who like to negotiate back door deals, but it levels the playing field for all. Insurance and providers shouldn't mingle anyways, it an inherent conflict of interest.
There is no subsidizing, the trailers are usually from the company releasing the movie. They'd be paying themselves. And how does that explain a $35 release day and $10 5 months from now pricing? Oh, the real price is $10? Amazing.
There are people who don't have fast internet.
There are people who PREFER to view content on non-Internet-connected devices to avoid tracking.
I'd say #2 is a bigger issue than #1, for those that are connected. There's another reason to prefer to view content on non-internet-connected devices: the ability to view any time, even when the internet is down or the 'friendly DRM" site is down or gone.
When I buy content, I expect to own it like a book. The damn thing is mine, and I can view it whenever I want. If I wanted a "rental" I'd have gone to blockbuster or a movie theater.
I'd agree - because when I buy a disk I 1) don't want to wait 5 minutes for it to start up 2) don't want to be pestered by the MPAA advert (don't copy this or you will be given life in prison) for 20s nor the 25 trailers that on some disks you can't even skip through, much less go directly to the menu, or a host of other issues. I bought this, I'd like to cut out all the other crap and just access the movie please. I'd say anyone that's seen a HTPC in action will quickly lose patience with a BD player.
I'd agree with the latter sentiments - but the US didn't involve significant troops until 1965, 10 years after the "official" start of the war.