Forget standardized tests, they don't measure anything meaningful. The metric society should be looking at is of the graduating high school seniors who go on to a college or university, how many graduate with a degree withing five years? And for those who do not go on to college or university, how many are gainfully employed five years out?
If schools are turning out students that can get degrees or keep jobs, then they are a successful school. OTOH, if they aren't able to do that, then they aren't a successful school. There really is no need for another standardized test. Student results will tell us more effectively than any test will.
Right now there's a big push for "analytics" in the form of testing, testing, and more testing. We "need" the tests (they say) to make sure students are performing up to par. Then, to make sure teachers have an incentive to raise scores, the teachers' jobs or salaries are put on the line. (If you don't raise your scores consistently, bye-bye! No, we don't care that you teach special ed and your kids don't do well on tests.) All this does is heap piles of anxiety on students, make teachers teach to the test, drive good teachers from the profession, and decrease the quality of education all around.
But at least we'll have metrics for analyzing performance.
What you are describing is a sure way to make sure that teachers teach to the test instead of imparting knowledge. The two are not synonymous. It is far less important to know that the War of 1812 was in 1812 than to know what it was about. Distilling what it was about to a few multiple choice questions is a great thing if you are into revisionist histories, but doesn't measure if a student has grasped what was going on. Then again, maybe the standardized test won't even ask about that.
In the US, there are two pretty standard tests that most people take if they are going on to college - the ACT or the SAT. Most states also have some sort of test, too. How many more do we need?
Here is a good metric to use that doesn't require a standardized test. How many graduating 12th graders who go on to college obtain a degree withing five years? For those who do not go to college, how many are gainfully employed? If the numbers are high, this school is successful, if not, then this school is not successful and a change is needed. After all, isn't that really the purpose of these analytics?
The more the stay the same. Using analytics to tailor education isn't new. In th 1950s and 60s, the analytics used were called IQ tests. Kids with high IQs were pushed into math and science, the rest took shop or home ec. Many countries, particularly in SE Asia still do this. So, the only thing that has changed is that today, we have more sophisticated analytics than before.
Not quite. The study found that geezers are less willing to take a risk to win, but more willing to take risks to avoid a loss. In many cases they were avoiding good risks and taking bad risks. Overall, they were making worse decisions than younger people when either accepting or declining risks.
This is consistent with what we are taught. Look at retirement accounts. When you are young you are encouraged to take more risk and invest heavily in equities. By retirement, you are encouraged to be heavy in fixed income. Normally that is a safe position. However, since you are no longer diversified, if something happens to interest rates, you face a significant decline in value.
It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with training.
You have many points and I do not wish to get into an ideological debate, but I would like to point out what I consider some flaws in your reasoning. With regards to the cost of insuring health care risk. The population in the US is given and the number of treatments for that population can reasonably be estimated (actuaries do it all the time). The costs of treating those people are the true cost of health care and it does not matter whether there is insurance or not. For people without insurance who cannot pay their bill, those costs are passed on to those who do have insurance, so it is already figured in to everybody's insurance.
Having the uninsured pay for insurance spreads that cost over more people, plane and simple. It isn't a handout anymore than providing police and fire protection is a handout. The people would get medical treatment whether they could pay for it or not. If you have insurance, you are already paying for their coverage. If anything, the current system provides the handout and the exchanges have everybody pay something toward their coverage. Again, the health care industry is going to receive their fee either way. All that is changing is whether or not the 80% who have insurance are paying 100% of the cost or not. Even if the exchanges are subsidized with tax dollars, it doesn't cost the 80% any more than it does now, because they are already paying the full 100% of the cost. Unless the gov't subsidizes 100%, anything the individual pays out of pocket into the exchange reduces what the currently insured pays on their behalf.
You also say that hospitals can make people pay up front or use credit. They could but they don't. Maybe in an ideal world, but since most for profit hospitals have a board of directors and shareholders and most gov't hospitals are taxpayer funded, they would prefer knowing there is somebody to pay the bill versus having to pay for collection services, still writing off patient accoutns and then charging everybody else to make up the difference.
As for the spreading the risk (point c), most of the uninsured do, indeed, tend to be 20 somethings, so the chance that they are healthy probably is good. For the rest who aren't, again, you are already paying for their health care.
So, in the end, the exchanges, technically don't cost you any more than what you are currently paying, if you look at the total cost of health care.
If the government is shut, there is no way for a petition to be received. Boehner seems to be infringing our rights. All three branches receive petitions, the courts perhaps the most of all.
The shutdown has done nothing to stop a private citizen from petitioning either their own representative and/or senator or any other representative and/or senator to introduce legislation. That is how the system has always worked. If you want a bill passed, you get somebody in congress to introduce it. It happens totally in the legislative branch of government. Maybe you are confusing some other program of the Obama Administration with how the process works. Simply, put, all bills must have a sponsor. The shutdown hasn't changed that process or even limited it. Shutdown or not, you are still free to contact your senator and representative.
There has to be a reason why the GOP pushed the exchanges before Obama was in office. It could very well be that yes it does shift costs around, but at the same time with expanding the pool of insured to include healthy young workers, everybody pays a little bit and everybody has the same protection if the odds are against them. It makes no difference whether it's homeowners, auto, life or health insurance. The risk of needing health care is the same whether one has insurance or not. Spreading the cost of insuring that risk over a larger pool brings down the cost for everybody because a) for those currently uninsured, they can get treatment when needed. b) hospitals that would be treating the uninsured know they will get paid and don't have to pass the cost on to the rest of us and c) for those already with insurance, the risk is spread over a bigger pool of participants (again the risk is the same whether people are insured or not), thus lowering their costs.
That is probably why the GOP pushed the exchanges because in theory, everybody wins. It was only after politics got involved that it was deemed a bad idea, but one only has to read the congressional record to see the genesis of the exchanges and the arguments in their favor -- all before Obama was ever even running.
All that said, whether exchanges or single payer system, that only helps with one side of the problem, how the consumer pays for health care. Neither does anything to control why health care costs are rising significantly faster than the inflation rate and until those issues are addressed (ACA attempts to deal with some), health care will continue to skyrocket.
What the ACA does is makes health insurance affordable, but not necessarily health care affordable. The two are not synonymous.
Universal health care benefits the poor / middle income more than the high earners. I know Obamacare is far from the universal health care some countries enjoy, but it is a step to the right direction. When we know majority of the people in USA falls into middle class category, why would republican oppose the bill. I'm curious.
When people can't afford to pay for the health care they receive, those costs are passed on to those who can afford it. So, all of this rhetoric about how much it costs is misleading. The wealthy are already paying for the uninsured and underinsured. About 20% of healthcare costs go to pay for that. It is just like shoplifting. If 20% of the goods in the store are shoplifted, the store doesn't just eat the loss, it is passed on to customers in higher prices. Reduce shoplifting and prices stabilize. Likewise, reduce the uninsured and underinsured and health care cost should stabilize, too. In addition, with insurance, people will be more likely to get treatment sooner, before many conditions require more drastic and costly courses of action.
As for your question about the republicans not serving the majority of people? That's easy, while the majority of the people in the USA may be middle class, they aren't the ones who pay to put the republicans in office (same could be said about democrats). They are serving those who got them and can keep them elected, not those who voted for them.
The simplest,and obviously best solution to Obamacare is Medicare for all. Just do it goddammit! For the "debt"? Quit propping up the derivatives markets.. Zero the books, and make a fresh start. Fuck Wall Street.
A single payer system (ie. Medicare) was the original proposal but the GOP wouldn't support it, so the Administration replaced it with the GOP's proposed exchange program from the Bush Administration.
As for devaluing the currency, which is what you are proposing, that would have disastrous effects world wide as so many things are priced in dollars. A much more sound approach would be for banks to choose whether they want to be investment banks or commercial banks and not both. There is a reason why all of the banking regulations were added after the Depression and all of these crazy problems started after we deregulated the banks. Second, pension funds should not be allowed to invest in derivatives. That is the real reason the government is propping up these markets. If they collapse, most people's pensions are gone.
While on paper it sounds good to let the markets crash and start over again, think of it like a train without brakes that can't stop. Eventually, the train gets to the end of the line and does indeed stop. But for the people on the train, that solution isn't so good. Likewise, for the people vested in the economy, which is pretty much everybody, not just investors, letting things come crashing down is likewise one way to stop the craziness, but probably not the best way.
One of our Rights in the Bill of Rights is the right to petition our government. This is implemented in all sorts of ways. There are appeals processes when benefits are denied, the White House runs a petition lottery of sorts and rule making has public input mechanisms. I'm wondering: if this Right is impeded by the Speaker's shutdown, is the shutdown unconstitutional?
The shutdown is constitutional, because it is a spending bill. Without the authority to spend on these services, the services can't be offered. As for petitioning the government, nothing in the shutdown prevents that from happening. By the way, the petitioning process is part of legislative branch, not the executive branch.
1) Get big money interest out of politics. The good book says you can't serve two masters. As long as big money is involved, congress will serve them instead of the people.
2) If you can't change #1, then the shutdown has to impact the big money interests. Currently, parks and monuments and programs for the poor like Head Start and a lot of civilian workers (400,000 of them) are impacted, but for most people life goes on. If the shutdown closes airports, so business flyers can't travel, if it stops inspections at ports so goods can't be loaded or off loaded, if it closes US boarders because of lack of federal law enforcement, if, in other words, it causes real pain to the big money interests instead of just the poor, then Congress will do something to keep it from happening, because their (big money interest) pain will be felt at the election box.
3) Finally, regardless of #1 or #2, the staff of Congress shouldn't be exempted from the shutdown. Maybe if they have to do their own work instead of having aides do everything, they will think twice and of course, their pay and housing allowances and perks and benefits all should be stopped, too. After all, during a shutdown, only emergency services should be provided and their expense accounts hardly qualify.
Do I think any of that will happen? No, of course not -- the big money interests won't allow it.
The world is your oyster if you are IBM and you can buy your "self" a sympathetic lawmaker connected to a compliant judiciary. Welcome to capitalistc competition. Where everything is exactly what it seems to be, if you are a total cynic.
I'm sure this is not unique to IBM and that Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others are just as culpable.
Out of curiousity, how did the casino know that he had "folded with an unbelievably good hand"? Everytime I've been to a casino, if I've folded, I didn't have to show my hand.
Wrong, and you're also a hypocrite. You don't mind near slaves and children making everything you buy, the same countries can do you software work just as well too, and for less. Would you rather these people live in the US for a while, pay taxes for your benefits, or have all that money go overseas and have them work in their original country?
Ummm, these people coming in on H1B visas aren't working in sweatshops in SE Asia. Nor would changing H1B visa laws impact those sweatshops one bit. Besides, aren't those same H1B visa holders purchasing the same goods in the US that the rest of the people are, thus exploiting the "slave labor and children"? As for the taxes? I'm pretty sure that whomever IBM (in this case) hired in the US, they would be paying taxes, too. As such, all the things you mention make no difference whether a domestic worker or an H1B worker.
I'm not sure who you are angry with, but really, it seems misplaced.
Nonsense. Those visas mandate proper salaries (note that the article says nothing about this point)
It still drives down wages. If there truly is a limited supply of skilled workers, then supply and demand dictates that wages will increase. As wages increase, more workers will enter the field and wages will stabilize. However, bringing in H1B workers keeps supply and demand from working, thus keeping wages down and discourages new workers from entering the field. Bring in enough H1B workers and now there are a surplus of workers and wages fall, maybe not ot third world levels, but below what the market would normally dictate.
So ultimately, the OP was correct, H1B visas, because they disrupt the normal supply and demand flow for wages do indeed supress wages. While that is not the intended purpose of H1B visas, that is the practical effect.
And that is basically what all intelligent design people are doing: setting themselves up for failure. You can't base your belief in god on examples in nature. If you do, science will one day just come along and show how X happened by natural processes. God just shrunk.
The problem is that ID isn't mainstream, even among protestant denominations and it, in reality suffers from the same philosophical flaw that those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God.
God, in the Judea-Christian tradition, as the creator, is outside of His creation. He is super-natural (not in the sense of ghosts and goblins). Science, can only deal with the natural world. Physics, even theoretical physics is all about the universe. As soon as one speculates about what is outside the universe (or multiverse, to be more technical), you are no longer dealing with physics, but meta-physics. But meta-physics isn't science, but philosophy.
Now, one can take philosophy and try and base it on or seed it with scientific principles. Some physicists have attempted to do this in their "proof" that God does not exist. But in reality, that is exactly the same thing that the ID people do. They blend philosophy and science, but all they have is a more muddied version of metaphysics.
In reality, science can only deal with the real world and theology is a specialized branch of philosophy. Both can be used to answer unique questions. The problem is that we no longer really teach philosophy, because it comes naturally (if a then b and all logic comes from philosophy, not science, for instance). But, since we don't teach it, it is easy to make mistakes in its application. Aristotle (I think) said that an archer who makes a slight error at the start misses the target by a large degree. The same is true for the populace. Without understanding philosophy, we make simple erroneous assumptions that ultimately lead to large errors in the end products of our arguments. ID is one of these.
There are limitations as to the questions that science can answer just like there are limitations to the questions philosophy can answer. The existence of God is one of those questions that science will never be able to answer. Likewise, philosophy will never be able to answer the origin of the universe. Both problems are outside the realm of each discipline.
Put differently, even if one day in the future, we figure out the physics behind how the universe came into existence (science), it will say nothing about whether or not God created the universe. At best, all science could then say was that if God created the universe, this is how He did it.
However, an IBM keyboard designer didn't want to give Microsoft a single button to start things up, and thus the iconic three-finger-salute was born."
I always had to use ctrl-alt-delete to shut things down, never to start them up. Besides, why blame IBM? They weren't the ones who assigned anything to ctr-alt-delete. Microsoft could have just as easily used F10 or ctrl-esc or any other key stroke.
I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately.
The "piracy" conflict is mostly down to the music mogul's definition of "appropriate".
Remember that the actual artists very rarely get paid, if at all (see Internet for further details...)
That is true. Ironically, piracy is a misnomer. Most music studios long ago convinced the courts that the music wasn't tangible personal property to get around various sales and use taxes (in the US anyway). As such, by definition, it can't be piracy as there is not tangible property to steal. It may be a copyright violation, but even that is questionable as a downloaded mp3 is not the same as the original work or even the the uploaded mp3 (different electrons, arranged differently on the magnetic media). In reality, it is a contract violation between the original purchaser and the studio. But since the studio can't tell who the original purchaser is, they go after everybody else (and pay politicians to change laws to permit it).
But, be clear, piracy, by it's very nature requires tangible personal property, which electronic media, by definition is not.
Who don't you explain why we should not have all the stuff we want for free?
It worked fine for at least 50.000 years of human history, artists, musicians etc happily continued creating "culture" without getting payed for it 70 years after their deaths.
You can have all of the stuff you want for free. On the other hand, if you want somebody else to produce it for you, they don't have to produce it for you for free. But, you, yourself, can do it for free.
As for the rest of your post, at least since the Middle Ages and probably long before that, the arts were supported by the wealthy and the artisans could only "perform" with the permission of their sponsor. Back then, the artisans were more like indentured servants. As long as they pleased the king, the prince, or whomever, they got to eat and ply their trade. If not, well, there is a reason why artists have the reputation of being starving.
Government protection for a business model that's failing (for whatever reason) is a very slippery slope.
(Before answering, consider that the music industry's golden years were when people used to freely record music which was being broadcast by radio...)
No business should expect that profits will always go upwards to infinity. Every market will plateau. Some markets will collapse. Some will no longer be able to support a huge amount of middlemen (which is who's inventing the figures for 'losses' by the music industry, despite all independent studies to the contrary).
Actually, that would be Government protection for a campaign donation scheme from a business model that's failing.
I'm glad to know that the MP equates downloading a song with viewing pictures of child rape. Since the content providers are pushing the MP on this, one can only assume they share the view that downloading songs is more serious than child rape, too.
What if this had been a "self-driven" car, like Google wants us to use?
Ooops.
Hundreds dead due to map error. Film at 11.
Naw, never will happen. Google cars use Google Maps and Google Maps knows the difference between roads and runways. Apple Maps was probably confused because of of the taxi way. Siri probably thought if taxis can go there, so can cars.
ps. It was a self-driven car. I think Google is pushing driverless cars.
While it's fun to ridicule the boy scouts, from the Hacker Scouts own web site:
Hacker Scouts is an inclusive, diverse, co-ed organization designed to support the next generation of makers, explorers, entrepreneurs, and leaders through an innovative program that blends creativity and technical skill through the study of science, technology, engineering, art, and math (STEAM). Every part of our organization is guided by the fundamental belief that children learn best when they are self-motivated and enthusiastic about a subject, when they have skilled mentors, and when the environment supports their social, emotional, and cognitive developmental needs. In Hacker Scouts, kids have the opportunity to explore new concepts and skills, focus on their individual goals, and create community. This makes us unlike any other program. In a quickly changing world, Hacker Scouts provides a relevant, consistent, well-rounded foundation of knowledge combined with an emphasis on values like resourcefulness, ingenuity, creativity, and persistance that will support our kid's ability to adapt to new technology, now and in the future.
and
While most of our activities are targeted at the 8-14 year old range, all ages are welcome at Hacker Scouts Open Lab. Because Open Lab is not a drop off program, parents and mentors are available to help modify projects for younger makers.
It would appear that they target the same age groups as the boy scouts (including cub scouts) and even hold scout sunday events like the boy scouts. It's not too far of a reach to see why the boy scouts might say there could be confusion between the two. After all, in terms of official scouting, there are Cub Scouts (including TIger Scout, Wolf Scout, Bear Scout Webelos Scout), Boy Scouts, Explorer Scouts, Adventure Scouts and probably others. Who is to say somebody wouldn't think that Hacker Scout wasn't part of that group?
Just saying, that in this case, the boy scout organization, might have a valid point.
The airport said it had been told the problem would be fixed by Wednesday. However the BBC still experienced the issue when it tested the app,
umm, it's weds morning. give them to EOD sounds reasonable.
Ummm, fixed "by" Wednesday means just that. If it's Wednesday, then it's supposed to be fixed. Fixed "on" Wednesday would give them until the EOD. By, in this context is synonymous with "before." So, if they said "It will be fixed before Wednesday," would you still say give them until the EOD?
Slashdot Mirror
Forget standardized tests, they don't measure anything meaningful. The metric society should be looking at is of the graduating high school seniors who go on to a college or university, how many graduate with a degree withing five years? And for those who do not go on to college or university, how many are gainfully employed five years out?
If schools are turning out students that can get degrees or keep jobs, then they are a successful school. OTOH, if they aren't able to do that, then they aren't a successful school. There really is no need for another standardized test. Student results will tell us more effectively than any test will.
Here! Here!
Right now there's a big push for "analytics" in the form of testing, testing, and more testing. We "need" the tests (they say) to make sure students are performing up to par. Then, to make sure teachers have an incentive to raise scores, the teachers' jobs or salaries are put on the line. (If you don't raise your scores consistently, bye-bye! No, we don't care that you teach special ed and your kids don't do well on tests.) All this does is heap piles of anxiety on students, make teachers teach to the test, drive good teachers from the profession, and decrease the quality of education all around.
But at least we'll have metrics for analyzing performance.
What you are describing is a sure way to make sure that teachers teach to the test instead of imparting knowledge. The two are not synonymous. It is far less important to know that the War of 1812 was in 1812 than to know what it was about. Distilling what it was about to a few multiple choice questions is a great thing if you are into revisionist histories, but doesn't measure if a student has grasped what was going on. Then again, maybe the standardized test won't even ask about that.
In the US, there are two pretty standard tests that most people take if they are going on to college - the ACT or the SAT. Most states also have some sort of test, too. How many more do we need?
Here is a good metric to use that doesn't require a standardized test. How many graduating 12th graders who go on to college obtain a degree withing five years? For those who do not go to college, how many are gainfully employed? If the numbers are high, this school is successful, if not, then this school is not successful and a change is needed. After all, isn't that really the purpose of these analytics?
The more the stay the same. Using analytics to tailor education isn't new. In th 1950s and 60s, the analytics used were called IQ tests. Kids with high IQs were pushed into math and science, the rest took shop or home ec. Many countries, particularly in SE Asia still do this. So, the only thing that has changed is that today, we have more sophisticated analytics than before.
The study says fogies prefer less risk.
Not quite. The study found that geezers are less willing to take a risk to win, but more willing to take risks to avoid a loss. In many cases they were avoiding good risks and taking bad risks. Overall, they were making worse decisions than younger people when either accepting or declining risks.
This is consistent with what we are taught. Look at retirement accounts. When you are young you are encouraged to take more risk and invest heavily in equities. By retirement, you are encouraged to be heavy in fixed income. Normally that is a safe position. However, since you are no longer diversified, if something happens to interest rates, you face a significant decline in value.
It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with training.
You have many points and I do not wish to get into an ideological debate, but I would like to point out what I consider some flaws in your reasoning. With regards to the cost of insuring health care risk. The population in the US is given and the number of treatments for that population can reasonably be estimated (actuaries do it all the time). The costs of treating those people are the true cost of health care and it does not matter whether there is insurance or not. For people without insurance who cannot pay their bill, those costs are passed on to those who do have insurance, so it is already figured in to everybody's insurance.
Having the uninsured pay for insurance spreads that cost over more people, plane and simple. It isn't a handout anymore than providing police and fire protection is a handout. The people would get medical treatment whether they could pay for it or not. If you have insurance, you are already paying for their coverage. If anything, the current system provides the handout and the exchanges have everybody pay something toward their coverage. Again, the health care industry is going to receive their fee either way. All that is changing is whether or not the 80% who have insurance are paying 100% of the cost or not. Even if the exchanges are subsidized with tax dollars, it doesn't cost the 80% any more than it does now, because they are already paying the full 100% of the cost. Unless the gov't subsidizes 100%, anything the individual pays out of pocket into the exchange reduces what the currently insured pays on their behalf.
You also say that hospitals can make people pay up front or use credit. They could but they don't. Maybe in an ideal world, but since most for profit hospitals have a board of directors and shareholders and most gov't hospitals are taxpayer funded, they would prefer knowing there is somebody to pay the bill versus having to pay for collection services, still writing off patient accoutns and then charging everybody else to make up the difference.
As for the spreading the risk (point c), most of the uninsured do, indeed, tend to be 20 somethings, so the chance that they are healthy probably is good. For the rest who aren't, again, you are already paying for their health care.
So, in the end, the exchanges, technically don't cost you any more than what you are currently paying, if you look at the total cost of health care.
If the government is shut, there is no way for a petition to be received. Boehner seems to be infringing our rights. All three branches receive petitions, the courts perhaps the most of all.
The shutdown has done nothing to stop a private citizen from petitioning either their own representative and/or senator or any other representative and/or senator to introduce legislation. That is how the system has always worked. If you want a bill passed, you get somebody in congress to introduce it. It happens totally in the legislative branch of government. Maybe you are confusing some other program of the Obama Administration with how the process works. Simply, put, all bills must have a sponsor. The shutdown hasn't changed that process or even limited it. Shutdown or not, you are still free to contact your senator and representative.
There has to be a reason why the GOP pushed the exchanges before Obama was in office. It could very well be that yes it does shift costs around, but at the same time with expanding the pool of insured to include healthy young workers, everybody pays a little bit and everybody has the same protection if the odds are against them. It makes no difference whether it's homeowners, auto, life or health insurance. The risk of needing health care is the same whether one has insurance or not. Spreading the cost of insuring that risk over a larger pool brings down the cost for everybody because a) for those currently uninsured, they can get treatment when needed. b) hospitals that would be treating the uninsured know they will get paid and don't have to pass the cost on to the rest of us and c) for those already with insurance, the risk is spread over a bigger pool of participants (again the risk is the same whether people are insured or not), thus lowering their costs.
That is probably why the GOP pushed the exchanges because in theory, everybody wins. It was only after politics got involved that it was deemed a bad idea, but one only has to read the congressional record to see the genesis of the exchanges and the arguments in their favor -- all before Obama was ever even running.
All that said, whether exchanges or single payer system, that only helps with one side of the problem, how the consumer pays for health care. Neither does anything to control why health care costs are rising significantly faster than the inflation rate and until those issues are addressed (ACA attempts to deal with some), health care will continue to skyrocket.
What the ACA does is makes health insurance affordable, but not necessarily health care affordable. The two are not synonymous.
Universal health care benefits the poor / middle income more than the high earners. I know Obamacare is far from the universal health care some countries enjoy, but it is a step to the right direction. When we know majority of the people in USA falls into middle class category, why would republican oppose the bill. I'm curious.
When people can't afford to pay for the health care they receive, those costs are passed on to those who can afford it. So, all of this rhetoric about how much it costs is misleading. The wealthy are already paying for the uninsured and underinsured. About 20% of healthcare costs go to pay for that. It is just like shoplifting. If 20% of the goods in the store are shoplifted, the store doesn't just eat the loss, it is passed on to customers in higher prices. Reduce shoplifting and prices stabilize. Likewise, reduce the uninsured and underinsured and health care cost should stabilize, too. In addition, with insurance, people will be more likely to get treatment sooner, before many conditions require more drastic and costly courses of action.
As for your question about the republicans not serving the majority of people? That's easy, while the majority of the people in the USA may be middle class, they aren't the ones who pay to put the republicans in office (same could be said about democrats). They are serving those who got them and can keep them elected, not those who voted for them.
The simplest ,and obviously best solution to Obamacare is Medicare for all. Just do it goddammit! For the "debt"? Quit propping up the derivatives markets.. Zero the books, and make a fresh start. Fuck Wall Street.
A single payer system (ie. Medicare) was the original proposal but the GOP wouldn't support it, so the Administration replaced it with the GOP's proposed exchange program from the Bush Administration.
As for devaluing the currency, which is what you are proposing, that would have disastrous effects world wide as so many things are priced in dollars. A much more sound approach would be for banks to choose whether they want to be investment banks or commercial banks and not both. There is a reason why all of the banking regulations were added after the Depression and all of these crazy problems started after we deregulated the banks. Second, pension funds should not be allowed to invest in derivatives. That is the real reason the government is propping up these markets. If they collapse, most people's pensions are gone.
While on paper it sounds good to let the markets crash and start over again, think of it like a train without brakes that can't stop. Eventually, the train gets to the end of the line and does indeed stop. But for the people on the train, that solution isn't so good. Likewise, for the people vested in the economy, which is pretty much everybody, not just investors, letting things come crashing down is likewise one way to stop the craziness, but probably not the best way.
One of our Rights in the Bill of Rights is the right to petition our government. This is implemented in all sorts of ways. There are appeals processes when benefits are denied, the White House runs a petition lottery of sorts and rule making has public input mechanisms. I'm wondering: if this Right is impeded by the Speaker's shutdown, is the shutdown unconstitutional?
The shutdown is constitutional, because it is a spending bill. Without the authority to spend on these services, the services can't be offered. As for petitioning the government, nothing in the shutdown prevents that from happening. By the way, the petitioning process is part of legislative branch, not the executive branch.
How to stop shutdowns.
1) Get big money interest out of politics. The good book says you can't serve two masters. As long as big money is involved, congress will serve them instead of the people.
2) If you can't change #1, then the shutdown has to impact the big money interests. Currently, parks and monuments and programs for the poor like Head Start and a lot of civilian workers (400,000 of them) are impacted, but for most people life goes on. If the shutdown closes airports, so business flyers can't travel, if it stops inspections at ports so goods can't be loaded or off loaded, if it closes US boarders because of lack of federal law enforcement, if, in other words, it causes real pain to the big money interests instead of just the poor, then Congress will do something to keep it from happening, because their (big money interest) pain will be felt at the election box.
3) Finally, regardless of #1 or #2, the staff of Congress shouldn't be exempted from the shutdown. Maybe if they have to do their own work instead of having aides do everything, they will think twice and of course, their pay and housing allowances and perks and benefits all should be stopped, too. After all, during a shutdown, only emergency services should be provided and their expense accounts hardly qualify.
Do I think any of that will happen? No, of course not -- the big money interests won't allow it.
The world is your oyster if you are IBM and you can buy your "self" a sympathetic lawmaker connected to a compliant judiciary. Welcome to capitalistc competition. Where everything is exactly what it seems to be, if you are a total cynic.
I'm sure this is not unique to IBM and that Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others are just as culpable.
Out of curiousity, how did the casino know that he had "folded with an unbelievably good hand"? Everytime I've been to a casino, if I've folded, I didn't have to show my hand.
Wrong, and you're also a hypocrite. You don't mind near slaves and children making everything you buy, the same countries can do you software work just as well too, and for less. Would you rather these people live in the US for a while, pay taxes for your benefits, or have all that money go overseas and have them work in their original country?
Ummm, these people coming in on H1B visas aren't working in sweatshops in SE Asia. Nor would changing H1B visa laws impact those sweatshops one bit. Besides, aren't those same H1B visa holders purchasing the same goods in the US that the rest of the people are, thus exploiting the "slave labor and children"? As for the taxes? I'm pretty sure that whomever IBM (in this case) hired in the US, they would be paying taxes, too. As such, all the things you mention make no difference whether a domestic worker or an H1B worker.
I'm not sure who you are angry with, but really, it seems misplaced.
A law that is not enforced is hardly a law at all.
Worse is when laws are only selectively enforced.
Nonsense. Those visas mandate proper salaries (note that the article says nothing about this point)
It still drives down wages. If there truly is a limited supply of skilled workers, then supply and demand dictates that wages will increase. As wages increase, more workers will enter the field and wages will stabilize. However, bringing in H1B workers keeps supply and demand from working, thus keeping wages down and discourages new workers from entering the field. Bring in enough H1B workers and now there are a surplus of workers and wages fall, maybe not ot third world levels, but below what the market would normally dictate.
So ultimately, the OP was correct, H1B visas, because they disrupt the normal supply and demand flow for wages do indeed supress wages. While that is not the intended purpose of H1B visas, that is the practical effect.
And that is basically what all intelligent design people are doing: setting themselves up for failure. You can't base your belief in god on examples in nature. If you do, science will one day just come along and show how X happened by natural processes. God just shrunk.
The problem is that ID isn't mainstream, even among protestant denominations and it, in reality suffers from the same philosophical flaw that those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God.
God, in the Judea-Christian tradition, as the creator, is outside of His creation. He is super-natural (not in the sense of ghosts and goblins). Science, can only deal with the natural world. Physics, even theoretical physics is all about the universe. As soon as one speculates about what is outside the universe (or multiverse, to be more technical), you are no longer dealing with physics, but meta-physics. But meta-physics isn't science, but philosophy.
Now, one can take philosophy and try and base it on or seed it with scientific principles. Some physicists have attempted to do this in their "proof" that God does not exist. But in reality, that is exactly the same thing that the ID people do. They blend philosophy and science, but all they have is a more muddied version of metaphysics.
In reality, science can only deal with the real world and theology is a specialized branch of philosophy. Both can be used to answer unique questions. The problem is that we no longer really teach philosophy, because it comes naturally (if a then b and all logic comes from philosophy, not science, for instance). But, since we don't teach it, it is easy to make mistakes in its application. Aristotle (I think) said that an archer who makes a slight error at the start misses the target by a large degree. The same is true for the populace. Without understanding philosophy, we make simple erroneous assumptions that ultimately lead to large errors in the end products of our arguments. ID is one of these.
There are limitations as to the questions that science can answer just like there are limitations to the questions philosophy can answer. The existence of God is one of those questions that science will never be able to answer. Likewise, philosophy will never be able to answer the origin of the universe. Both problems are outside the realm of each discipline.
Put differently, even if one day in the future, we figure out the physics behind how the universe came into existence (science), it will say nothing about whether or not God created the universe. At best, all science could then say was that if God created the universe, this is how He did it.
However, an IBM keyboard designer didn't want to give Microsoft a single button to start things up, and thus the iconic three-finger-salute was born."
I always had to use ctrl-alt-delete to shut things down, never to start them up. Besides, why blame IBM? They weren't the ones who assigned anything to ctr-alt-delete. Microsoft could have just as easily used F10 or ctrl-esc or any other key stroke.
I think it's reasonable that the time and effort a creator puts behind a work is rewarded appropriately.
The "piracy" conflict is mostly down to the music mogul's definition of "appropriate".
Remember that the actual artists very rarely get paid, if at all (see Internet for further details...)
That is true. Ironically, piracy is a misnomer. Most music studios long ago convinced the courts that the music wasn't tangible personal property to get around various sales and use taxes (in the US anyway). As such, by definition, it can't be piracy as there is not tangible property to steal. It may be a copyright violation, but even that is questionable as a downloaded mp3 is not the same as the original work or even the the uploaded mp3 (different electrons, arranged differently on the magnetic media). In reality, it is a contract violation between the original purchaser and the studio. But since the studio can't tell who the original purchaser is, they go after everybody else (and pay politicians to change laws to permit it).
But, be clear, piracy, by it's very nature requires tangible personal property, which electronic media, by definition is not.
Who don't you explain why we should not have all the stuff we want for free?
It worked fine for at least 50.000 years of human history, artists, musicians etc happily continued creating "culture" without getting payed for it 70 years after their deaths.
You can have all of the stuff you want for free. On the other hand, if you want somebody else to produce it for you, they don't have to produce it for you for free. But, you, yourself, can do it for free.
As for the rest of your post, at least since the Middle Ages and probably long before that, the arts were supported by the wealthy and the artisans could only "perform" with the permission of their sponsor. Back then, the artisans were more like indentured servants. As long as they pleased the king, the prince, or whomever, they got to eat and ply their trade. If not, well, there is a reason why artists have the reputation of being starving.
Government protection for a business model that's failing (for whatever reason) is a very slippery slope.
(Before answering, consider that the music industry's golden years were when people used to freely record music which was being broadcast by radio...)
No business should expect that profits will always go upwards to infinity. Every market will plateau. Some markets will collapse. Some will no longer be able to support a huge amount of middlemen (which is who's inventing the figures for 'losses' by the music industry, despite all independent studies to the contrary).
Actually, that would be Government protection for a campaign donation scheme from a business model that's failing.
I'm glad to know that the MP equates downloading a song with viewing pictures of child rape. Since the content providers are pushing the MP on this, one can only assume they share the view that downloading songs is more serious than child rape, too.
What if this had been a "self-driven" car, like Google wants us to use?
Ooops.
Hundreds dead due to map error. Film at 11.
Naw, never will happen. Google cars use Google Maps and Google Maps knows the difference between roads and runways. Apple Maps was probably confused because of of the taxi way. Siri probably thought if taxis can go there, so can cars.
ps. It was a self-driven car. I think Google is pushing driverless cars.
While it's fun to ridicule the boy scouts, from the Hacker Scouts own web site:
Hacker Scouts is an inclusive, diverse, co-ed organization designed to support the next generation of makers, explorers, entrepreneurs, and leaders through an innovative program that blends creativity and technical skill through the study of science, technology, engineering, art, and math (STEAM). Every part of our organization is guided by the fundamental belief that children learn best when they are self-motivated and enthusiastic about a subject, when they have skilled mentors, and when the environment supports their social, emotional, and cognitive developmental needs. In Hacker Scouts, kids have the opportunity to explore new concepts and skills, focus on their individual goals, and create community. This makes us unlike any other program. In a quickly changing world, Hacker Scouts provides a relevant, consistent, well-rounded foundation of knowledge combined with an emphasis on values like resourcefulness, ingenuity, creativity, and persistance that will support our kid's ability to adapt to new technology, now and in the future.
and
While most of our activities are targeted at the 8-14 year old range, all ages are welcome at Hacker Scouts Open Lab. Because Open Lab is not a drop off program, parents and mentors are available to help modify projects for younger makers.
It would appear that they target the same age groups as the boy scouts (including cub scouts) and even hold scout sunday events like the boy scouts. It's not too far of a reach to see why the boy scouts might say there could be confusion between the two. After all, in terms of official scouting, there are Cub Scouts (including TIger Scout, Wolf Scout, Bear Scout Webelos Scout), Boy Scouts, Explorer Scouts, Adventure Scouts and probably others. Who is to say somebody wouldn't think that Hacker Scout wasn't part of that group?
Just saying, that in this case, the boy scout organization, might have a valid point.
FTFS:
The airport said it had been told the problem would be fixed by Wednesday. However the BBC still experienced the issue when it tested the app,
umm, it's weds morning. give them to EOD sounds reasonable.
Ummm, fixed "by" Wednesday means just that. If it's Wednesday, then it's supposed to be fixed. Fixed "on" Wednesday would give them until the EOD. By, in this context is synonymous with "before." So, if they said "It will be fixed before Wednesday," would you still say give them until the EOD?