Again, you are an asset to the movie theater because you view their advertisements, yet you pay them instead of the other way around.
The problem we're having is that neither one of us is "wrong". But the problem you're having is that the value of work is not the primary determinant in an employment scenario. That's why it's called "compensation" and not simply "payment".
I honestly cannot reconcile the following two statements, if they are supposed to be rational: 1) I would not work if I were not being paid, 2) I would rather work at my job than do anything else.
> The truth is it's going to result in massive tax increases which will go > toward paying many times the original outlay for decades to come
No it won't. Tax hikes are politically difficult. Inflation is easy, because no one give enough of a fsck to understand that it's the same damn thing (except that it punishes savers and rewards people in debt and makes economic crises like the current one more likely).
I feel like you're just intentionally not getting it, because you continue to pick and choose the elements of my comments that are most irrelevant, and respond to those parts.
The key part of my comment, which you ignored, was:
> My argument is that I call bullshit on people who say that they'd rather > be working than not working.
The guy you refer to as a "counterexample" is, in fact, getting paid for his work. You cannot say reliably that he doesn't believe that coming in on Saturdays is good for his career and his compensation.
I think you *do* get it, because 4-5 comments ago you said this:
> The fact that I enjoy my work as much as or more than other things in my > life does not mean I will work for free. That is not logical unless you > are super-rich or something.
And yet the super-rich still don't work for free! Instead, they do whatever the hell they want, whether that's golf, travel, sit on their ass, etc. What they don't do is computer repair and mow lawns and wash dishes at a restaurant. If you were wealthy enough that you did not have to work, your theory is that you would still work. Rock on if you believe that, but I think all the evidence points to this being simple delusion, so that you are happy with making money for someone else the rest of your life. The fact that you have been arguing with me for a couple days here for no apparent reason also supports this being a defense mechanism of sorts. I don't really care if people want to fool themselves into being happy, but to go around telling people on a rational path to happiness that they will never be happy (and having zero evidence to support that position other than a "gut feeling") is kind of ridiculous. I hope no one ever makes the mistake of listening to it.
The bottom line is that I derive happiness from the freedom to do what I want. That freedom is unattainable as long as my life is sustained by a bi-weekly paycheck. The further I am able to distance myself from the bi-weekly paycheck, the better. Ask people who have recently been laid off and have no savings how happy they are. Ask people who want to leave their job but can't in this economy (because they have no savings) how happy they are.
Anyway, like I said, I have no problem with people being "happy" the way you are, but it is not a rational position.
> There are far more factors involved in payment than whether I enjoy > my job or not
Of course it's not the only factor!
> Your argument is based on the idea that people are paid what they > think they are worth, not what the company which employs them thinks > they are worth
No, my argument is not based on that. It's much more involved than that. HOWEVER, the bottom line is that it cannot be true that you would rather work than do things like golf, go on vacation, etc.
> Consider the following
Your example supports my argument.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core of your argument appears to be; > "if I am enjoying myself, I must pay" and "if I am not enjoying myself, > I must be paid".
Yes, you are wrong. That is not my argument. My argument is that I call bullshit on people who say that they'd rather be working than not working. The things you allude to above is just me fumbling around trying to explain why it's bullshit to you, since you don't have a very good grasp on economics. Fundamentally, money is the encapsulation of enjoyment, because it is the means by which you purchase things that you enjoy (including supporting your family, your puppy, paying your mortgage, etc.). You mix these with "survival", but in reality you do not need money to survive in these days. You can survive without money, utilizing government programs for free food, free medical, and free shelter, as well as numerous charity offerings. What you call "survival" is truly enjoyment, and the quantification of it is money. I know it's a nice colloquialism that money doesn't equal happiness, but these same people cannot say what money then is instead.
Instead of continuing to be a dick, I will point you to the following document. Parts III and IV are probably not of interest to you, but the first part (Intro and Part II) has a decent historical account of money and an explanation of what money really is, in a language people not trained in economics can understand. http://www.mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf
> If I only come to work because I enjoy my job, what is to stop me > from randomly changing my mind?
That is a non-argument, because I can say the same thing about equitable pay. If you believe you are being paid fairly/well, what is to stop you from randomly changing your mind? I'm not sure what the meaning of "randomly changing my mind" is, even.
I noticed you didn't really address the core of my comment, but anyway...
> I would be forced to take a job I would not like in order to survive > and therefore the organisation would lose my skills.
Now your argument isn't holding up. If this were the case, then everyone would only be paid as much as needed to survive, and not a penny more. And yet our economy clearly does not function like this.
Secondly, why doesn't the movie theater pay you to watch a movie? There are advertisements at the beginning of the movie, and these are worthless if no one views them; thus your presence there is valuable to the movie theater. So why doesn't it pay you?
> The fact that I enjoy my work as much as or more than other things in > my life does not mean I will work for free.
It means that you will only work as long as the marginal cost over working with respect to those other things is less than the marginal benefit you get from work over those other things. With work, the marginal cost is negative (you get paid). That leaves only opportunity cost, and since you said you'd rather be working than doing other things, then you will always work, even if you stopped getting paid. You keep arguing with me on this point, which I guess just means you are not familiar with these concepts. Perhaps check wikipedia before giving me another "huh?" response?
Your stuffs? You uploaded it freely to their servers and under their terms of service. It's not yours. If you wanted it to be yours, you shouldn't have given it to other people.
Yeah, well, this may surprise you, but they might have their own problems to deal with. If you need to feel special, there are help lines you can call where people are being paid to listen to your problems.
How is that a counterexample? Death by gasoline fire is less likely than a gunshot wound to the head or jumping off of a tall building. The question is WHY did he choose this method over a more certain method. I don't buy that it is a counterexample.
> My entire point is that the statement "if I can just do X and get Y > then I will be happy" isn't always true. In fact, it rarely is true > at all.
That doesn't make any sense. The only way what you're saying could be true is if we had no control over our own happiness.
> Happiness and success are not the same thing at all. I have no problem > with saving for retirement, just I do not think saving for "happiness" > works.
If retirement will not make you happier than working, then there is no reason to save for retirement except that you might one day be unable to work. If that is your only reason to save for retirement, then by all means, take a job that has a good pension and shitty pay now.
> I also believe that people who are not capable of being happy now and > enjoying work, are not going to be happy no matter how much money they > get or how early they retire. But its guesswork if you fit, so my apologies > if I am wrong about you.
My issue isn't with the guesswork of whether I fit into this category; my issue is that you seem to have no actual reason to believe this. I am happy with my life, but I am not "happy" with my work (and I have no expectation that I will ever be happy with my work). Work is not a source of happiness. Family, friends, travel, food, wine, baseball games, etc are sources of happiness. Work allows me to have those things. If you don't believe me, then you'll need to explain why people PAY FOR those things I just listed, while they GET PAID FOR work. In other words, you'll need to explain why you don't pay to work, just as you pay for a baseball game, if both are sources of happiness.
> Actually, I enjoy working. Strange as that may sound. If I were to retire, > I would probably be less happy..
Sounds like you don't have a good hold on things that make you happy, and you need work to keep your mind active.
> And of course I will always be paid for it. Where do you get the idea that > enjoying work means you don't get paid? This is genuinely new to me. I > know plenty of counterexamples personally. Is it an American thing?
I'm sorry that economics is new to you. Your employer pays you because you are not willing to do the work for free. Meaning, if you were not paid, you would rather be doing something else. If you would NOT rather be doing something else, that means you would do the work regardless of the money, therefore your employer would not pay you. This is why I call huge BS when I hear people like you tell me that you are happy at work. You may not be miserable at work, but if you're telling me you wouldn't rather be doing something else, you're either full of it or the person paying you for work you'd do for free is an idiot.
> Being happy and working for and with like minded people are hardly > mutually exclusive.
I didn't say otherwise! I am happy with my life, but not due to my job.
> I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. Though I'm not sure you > see my point. Perhaps I have explained it poorly?
No. Your point is a common one, so you really don't need to explain it well. I just think -- respectfully -- it's bullshit.
> If you are always "delaying gratification" you will never be content > and never enjoy now.
I didn't say anything about "always" delaying gratification.
> If you intend to wait for retirement to be "happy", I seriously doubt > you will ever be.
What could you possibly be basing that on?
> I see no reason why I should not be happy now and when I retire.
Of course you can be happy during both. The question is when will you retire? It will be later if you forgo compensation in order to be happier now.
> If I enjoy my job, why should I retire early?
Simple economics. If you would be just as happy doing your job than not doing your job, you wouldn't be paid for it at all. So don't try to tell me you would be just as happy if you were retired or working.
> Why must the money be the "gratification" and not the job?
Que? I never said money was the gratification. I said the money was a way to get to the gratification, which is retirement.
> This way, I will actually be happier far longer than you.
You will be working for someone else longer than me.
The "I will take a job for less money if I'm happier" is not a noble position, it's just a different way of looking at the same thing. It's an effect of the inability to delay gratification. I will take a job for more money that makes me less happy, because I will retire earlier.
> Chasing wealth to find happiness is a complete waste of time. And you will > never be satisfied, if wealth is your only goal. You'll always want more.
I guess maybe my issue is that I can not relate to this, personally. I make good scratch and spend nearly nothing. A job is a stepping stone toward happiness, whether that is business ownership or eventual retirement. It is not to raise cash to spend money on stupid shit I don't need.
> Not everyone is motivated by money you know, and just because someone may > have a job that pays great doesn't mean they are somehow smarter than someone > who's job don't pay so great
You might be right, but only because you said "pay" and not "compensation". If you are talking about comparable jobs, then compensation differences mean almost exactly what you are saying it doesn't mean. People who take Job A over Job B even though Job A pays less are being manipulated by the people offering Job A.
> But if you go around making it plain that you intend to take your own life, > you make it other peoples' business.
People who do this are either full of shit or really, really stupid. People don't intentionally do things that make it more difficult for them to achieve their goals unless, you know, they don't want to achieve their goals.
> Since many people presenting as suicidal are beyond the capability to make > a logical decision
Who decides this?
> (people often come to deeply regret suicide attempts),
If they are regretting it, then they weren't successful. Do you think it's hard to kill oneself? It's not. These people you're talking about didn't really want to do it. These are the same people who were blabbing about it to everyone. And after they're all hopped up on meds, of course they're embarrassed about being pathetic.
> confessing suicidal tendencies to other people puts them in the position > of choosing between saving a life (at least temporarily), and potentially > watching a preventable and tragic death.
Or feeling ridiculously guilty after it isn't prevented. Doing this is incredibly selfish, but if it truly is the only way to save their life and the person wants their life saved, then I guess it's worth it.
> Regardless of what you want, it's inhumane to confess your shit to another > person and then expect them to take any action other than the one that > preempts exposure to guilt over a life lost.
Yes, and the person doing this doesn't want you to take any action other than that. Otherwise, they'd keep their mouth shut.
If they're talking about it, they don't intend on doing it. It's only after they are not heard that they turn to actually committing suicide as a last resort.
Thank you! Finally someone points out the real problem. If this was a story about a Windows app, it wouldn't have taken NEARLY as long for someone to point out that the real issue is lack of security with the platform.
You're all missing the point when it comes to security... especially when the ABP blog says allowing JS on NoScript's own site was putting their users at risks. Really? You installed software authored by this guy, giving his code MUCH HIGHER privileges than webpage JavaScript, and the webpage JavaScript authored by the same person is the security risk? Either he is a trusted source, or he isn't. And he clearly isn't.
> Yes, please. If someone will fork it, I will happily donate five bucks every year.
O rly? How many times have you paid for NoScript so far? I'm guessing zero. If you felt that it was worth $5 and didn't donate $5 but then also whine about him trying to make money from ads, the least you can do is not bullshit about how you'll definitely pay the $5 to the guy who forks the project (surely giving none of that back to the original author).
> Why is this even a nontrivial software project? Don't run javascript unless it > comes from a site that's on a whitelist. That doesn't seem like it should be a big > deal.
Yet it's worth $5/year to you? You're not making any sense...
Are you people serious? If this was just a program on Windows, everyone would be pointing out how incredibly insecure Windows is to even allow this behavior.
> The most detrimental entity in all of health care has to be the > private health insurance industry.
Probably true.
> Insurance companies have spent a great deal of time and money > developing strategies to MAKE MONEY.
So have hospitals.
> They have nearly perfected the art of delaying or denying > treatment for sick people all in the name of the almighty dollar.
Service providers have perfected the art of ordering unnecessary tests and prescribing unnecessary medications (just look at the treatment history in TFA), either due to profit-seeking or downright incompetence. You could look at the delaying as the natural result of fraudulent expenses.
> In the US, healthcare and insurance are for-profit businesses. How > much do you think a life insurance company would love it if they > were able to see your entire birth-to-present health history? > Insurance would be even less affordable than it is now.
Woah there, killer. I was with you until this part. You are correct about it being scary from a privacy perspective, but having that birth-to-present history would make insurance cheaper not more expensive. The more unknown there is, the more healthy people pay for unhealthy people, and the more EVERYONE pays for their insurance. If insurance agencies have more information, they can better estimate costs and therefore reduce their risk, which in the insurance world means lower premiums (assuming no government-sponsored monopolies).
> But when it can cost you the ability to get treatment that doesn't > bankrupt you, it's a big problem!
Meaning... when it keeps you from socializing your high medical costs across every other premium payer
> I can't help but feel while reading 'The Data Model That Nearly Killed Me' > that the problems encountered actually had very little to do with the > electronic record system at all.
That's the whole point, right? We are looking at EHR as what's going to solve our health care costs problems. We're kidding ourselves, if we have these kinds of serious business process problems.
Dude, you don't get it. The point is that EHR is not a panacea and doesn't fix the major problems that plague the health industry. Incidentally, that's the title of the fscking slashdot post! Christ...
Slashdot Mirror
> He is well paid because he is an asset.
Again, you are an asset to the movie theater because you view their advertisements, yet you pay them instead of the other way around.
The problem we're having is that neither one of us is "wrong". But the problem you're having is that the value of work is not the primary determinant in an employment scenario. That's why it's called "compensation" and not simply "payment".
I honestly cannot reconcile the following two statements, if they are supposed to be rational: 1) I would not work if I were not being paid, 2) I would rather work at my job than do anything else.
Anyway...
> The truth is it's going to result in massive tax increases which will go
> toward paying many times the original outlay for decades to come
No it won't. Tax hikes are politically difficult. Inflation is easy, because no one give enough of a fsck to understand that it's the same damn thing (except that it punishes savers and rewards people in debt and makes economic crises like the current one more likely).
Please consider supporting HR 1207, in the name of transparency. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207
I feel like you're just intentionally not getting it, because you continue to pick and choose the elements of my comments that are most irrelevant, and respond to those parts.
The key part of my comment, which you ignored, was:
> My argument is that I call bullshit on people who say that they'd rather
> be working than not working.
The guy you refer to as a "counterexample" is, in fact, getting paid for his work. You cannot say reliably that he doesn't believe that coming in on Saturdays is good for his career and his compensation.
I think you *do* get it, because 4-5 comments ago you said this:
> The fact that I enjoy my work as much as or more than other things in my
> life does not mean I will work for free. That is not logical unless you
> are super-rich or something.
And yet the super-rich still don't work for free! Instead, they do whatever the hell they want, whether that's golf, travel, sit on their ass, etc. What they don't do is computer repair and mow lawns and wash dishes at a restaurant. If you were wealthy enough that you did not have to work, your theory is that you would still work. Rock on if you believe that, but I think all the evidence points to this being simple delusion, so that you are happy with making money for someone else the rest of your life. The fact that you have been arguing with me for a couple days here for no apparent reason also supports this being a defense mechanism of sorts. I don't really care if people want to fool themselves into being happy, but to go around telling people on a rational path to happiness that they will never be happy (and having zero evidence to support that position other than a "gut feeling") is kind of ridiculous. I hope no one ever makes the mistake of listening to it.
The bottom line is that I derive happiness from the freedom to do what I want. That freedom is unattainable as long as my life is sustained by a bi-weekly paycheck. The further I am able to distance myself from the bi-weekly paycheck, the better. Ask people who have recently been laid off and have no savings how happy they are. Ask people who want to leave their job but can't in this economy (because they have no savings) how happy they are.
Anyway, like I said, I have no problem with people being "happy" the way you are, but it is not a rational position.
> There are far more factors involved in payment than whether I enjoy
> my job or not
Of course it's not the only factor!
> Your argument is based on the idea that people are paid what they
> think they are worth, not what the company which employs them thinks
> they are worth
No, my argument is not based on that. It's much more involved than that. HOWEVER, the bottom line is that it cannot be true that you would rather work than do things like golf, go on vacation, etc.
> Consider the following
Your example supports my argument.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core of your argument appears to be;
> "if I am enjoying myself, I must pay" and "if I am not enjoying myself,
> I must be paid".
Yes, you are wrong. That is not my argument. My argument is that I call bullshit on people who say that they'd rather be working than not working. The things you allude to above is just me fumbling around trying to explain why it's bullshit to you, since you don't have a very good grasp on economics. Fundamentally, money is the encapsulation of enjoyment, because it is the means by which you purchase things that you enjoy (including supporting your family, your puppy, paying your mortgage, etc.). You mix these with "survival", but in reality you do not need money to survive in these days. You can survive without money, utilizing government programs for free food, free medical, and free shelter, as well as numerous charity offerings. What you call "survival" is truly enjoyment, and the quantification of it is money. I know it's a nice colloquialism that money doesn't equal happiness, but these same people cannot say what money then is instead.
Instead of continuing to be a dick, I will point you to the following document. Parts III and IV are probably not of interest to you, but the first part (Intro and Part II) has a decent historical account of money and an explanation of what money really is, in a language people not trained in economics can understand. http://www.mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf
> If I only come to work because I enjoy my job, what is to stop me
> from randomly changing my mind?
That is a non-argument, because I can say the same thing about equitable pay. If you believe you are being paid fairly/well, what is to stop you from randomly changing your mind? I'm not sure what the meaning of "randomly changing my mind" is, even.
I noticed you didn't really address the core of my comment, but anyway...
> I would be forced to take a job I would not like in order to survive
> and therefore the organisation would lose my skills.
Now your argument isn't holding up. If this were the case, then everyone would only be paid as much as needed to survive, and not a penny more. And yet our economy clearly does not function like this.
Secondly, why doesn't the movie theater pay you to watch a movie? There are advertisements at the beginning of the movie, and these are worthless if no one views them; thus your presence there is valuable to the movie theater. So why doesn't it pay you?
> The fact that I enjoy my work as much as or more than other things in
> my life does not mean I will work for free.
It means that you will only work as long as the marginal cost over working with respect to those other things is less than the marginal benefit you get from work over those other things. With work, the marginal cost is negative (you get paid). That leaves only opportunity cost, and since you said you'd rather be working than doing other things, then you will always work, even if you stopped getting paid. You keep arguing with me on this point, which I guess just means you are not familiar with these concepts. Perhaps check wikipedia before giving me another "huh?" response?
Your stuffs? You uploaded it freely to their servers and under their terms of service. It's not yours. If you wanted it to be yours, you shouldn't have given it to other people.
Yeah, well, this may surprise you, but they might have their own problems to deal with. If you need to feel special, there are help lines you can call where people are being paid to listen to your problems.
How is that a counterexample? Death by gasoline fire is less likely than a gunshot wound to the head or jumping off of a tall building. The question is WHY did he choose this method over a more certain method. I don't buy that it is a counterexample.
> My entire point is that the statement "if I can just do X and get Y
> then I will be happy" isn't always true. In fact, it rarely is true
> at all.
That doesn't make any sense. The only way what you're saying could be true is if we had no control over our own happiness.
> Happiness and success are not the same thing at all. I have no problem
> with saving for retirement, just I do not think saving for "happiness"
> works.
If retirement will not make you happier than working, then there is no reason to save for retirement except that you might one day be unable to work. If that is your only reason to save for retirement, then by all means, take a job that has a good pension and shitty pay now.
> I also believe that people who are not capable of being happy now and
> enjoying work, are not going to be happy no matter how much money they
> get or how early they retire. But its guesswork if you fit, so my apologies
> if I am wrong about you.
My issue isn't with the guesswork of whether I fit into this category; my issue is that you seem to have no actual reason to believe this. I am happy with my life, but I am not "happy" with my work (and I have no expectation that I will ever be happy with my work). Work is not a source of happiness. Family, friends, travel, food, wine, baseball games, etc are sources of happiness. Work allows me to have those things. If you don't believe me, then you'll need to explain why people PAY FOR those things I just listed, while they GET PAID FOR work. In other words, you'll need to explain why you don't pay to work, just as you pay for a baseball game, if both are sources of happiness.
> Actually, I enjoy working. Strange as that may sound. If I were to retire,
> I would probably be less happy..
Sounds like you don't have a good hold on things that make you happy, and you need work to keep your mind active.
> And of course I will always be paid for it. Where do you get the idea that
> enjoying work means you don't get paid? This is genuinely new to me. I
> know plenty of counterexamples personally. Is it an American thing?
I'm sorry that economics is new to you. Your employer pays you because you are not willing to do the work for free. Meaning, if you were not paid, you would rather be doing something else. If you would NOT rather be doing something else, that means you would do the work regardless of the money, therefore your employer would not pay you. This is why I call huge BS when I hear people like you tell me that you are happy at work. You may not be miserable at work, but if you're telling me you wouldn't rather be doing something else, you're either full of it or the person paying you for work you'd do for free is an idiot.
> Being happy and working for and with like minded people are hardly
> mutually exclusive.
I didn't say otherwise! I am happy with my life, but not due to my job.
> I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. Though I'm not sure you
> see my point. Perhaps I have explained it poorly?
No. Your point is a common one, so you really don't need to explain it well. I just think -- respectfully -- it's bullshit.
> If you are always "delaying gratification" you will never be content
> and never enjoy now.
I didn't say anything about "always" delaying gratification.
> If you intend to wait for retirement to be "happy", I seriously doubt
> you will ever be.
What could you possibly be basing that on?
> I see no reason why I should not be happy now and when I retire.
Of course you can be happy during both. The question is when will you retire? It will be later if you forgo compensation in order to be happier now.
> If I enjoy my job, why should I retire early?
Simple economics. If you would be just as happy doing your job than not doing your job, you wouldn't be paid for it at all. So don't try to tell me you would be just as happy if you were retired or working.
> Why must the money be the "gratification" and not the job?
Que? I never said money was the gratification. I said the money was a way to get to the gratification, which is retirement.
> This way, I will actually be happier far longer than you.
You will be working for someone else longer than me.
Adobe: Remove "Save as PDF"
Microsoft: Sure would be terrible if something happened to Photoshop in the next update.
The "I will take a job for less money if I'm happier" is not a noble position, it's just a different way of looking at the same thing. It's an effect of the inability to delay gratification. I will take a job for more money that makes me less happy, because I will retire earlier.
> Chasing wealth to find happiness is a complete waste of time. And you will
> never be satisfied, if wealth is your only goal. You'll always want more.
I guess maybe my issue is that I can not relate to this, personally. I make good scratch and spend nearly nothing. A job is a stepping stone toward happiness, whether that is business ownership or eventual retirement. It is not to raise cash to spend money on stupid shit I don't need.
> Not everyone is motivated by money you know, and just because someone may
> have a job that pays great doesn't mean they are somehow smarter than someone
> who's job don't pay so great
You might be right, but only because you said "pay" and not "compensation". If you are talking about comparable jobs, then compensation differences mean almost exactly what you are saying it doesn't mean. People who take Job A over Job B even though Job A pays less are being manipulated by the people offering Job A.
> I'd say, its the old problem of the more you have, the more you want
Hogwash. The more you see other people have, either in real life or in advertisements, the more you want.
See also: anger toward "rich" people
> But if you go around making it plain that you intend to take your own life,
> you make it other peoples' business.
People who do this are either full of shit or really, really stupid. People don't intentionally do things that make it more difficult for them to achieve their goals unless, you know, they don't want to achieve their goals.
> Since many people presenting as suicidal are beyond the capability to make
> a logical decision
Who decides this?
> (people often come to deeply regret suicide attempts),
If they are regretting it, then they weren't successful. Do you think it's hard to kill oneself? It's not. These people you're talking about didn't really want to do it. These are the same people who were blabbing about it to everyone. And after they're all hopped up on meds, of course they're embarrassed about being pathetic.
> confessing suicidal tendencies to other people puts them in the position
> of choosing between saving a life (at least temporarily), and potentially
> watching a preventable and tragic death.
Or feeling ridiculously guilty after it isn't prevented. Doing this is incredibly selfish, but if it truly is the only way to save their life and the person wants their life saved, then I guess it's worth it.
> Regardless of what you want, it's inhumane to confess your shit to another
> person and then expect them to take any action other than the one that
> preempts exposure to guilt over a life lost.
Yes, and the person doing this doesn't want you to take any action other than that. Otherwise, they'd keep their mouth shut.
If they're talking about it, they don't intend on doing it. It's only after they are not heard that they turn to actually committing suicide as a last resort.
> Because there is no patent on it, and thus no protected revenue stream.
>
> In other words, not worth doing unless you possess a soul.
That's a bit simplistic... what about government grants? Why haven't those resulted in a lithium study?
Thank you! Finally someone points out the real problem. If this was a story about a Windows app, it wouldn't have taken NEARLY as long for someone to point out that the real issue is lack of security with the platform.
You're all missing the point when it comes to security... especially when the ABP blog says allowing JS on NoScript's own site was putting their users at risks. Really? You installed software authored by this guy, giving his code MUCH HIGHER privileges than webpage JavaScript, and the webpage JavaScript authored by the same person is the security risk? Either he is a trusted source, or he isn't. And he clearly isn't.
> Yes, please. If someone will fork it, I will happily donate five bucks every year.
O rly? How many times have you paid for NoScript so far? I'm guessing zero. If you felt that it was worth $5 and didn't donate $5 but then also whine about him trying to make money from ads, the least you can do is not bullshit about how you'll definitely pay the $5 to the guy who forks the project (surely giving none of that back to the original author).
> Why is this even a nontrivial software project? Don't run javascript unless it
> comes from a site that's on a whitelist. That doesn't seem like it should be a big
> deal.
Yet it's worth $5/year to you? You're not making any sense...
Are you people serious? If this was just a program on Windows, everyone would be pointing out how incredibly insecure Windows is to even allow this behavior.
> The most detrimental entity in all of health care has to be the
> private health insurance industry.
Probably true.
> Insurance companies have spent a great deal of time and money
> developing strategies to MAKE MONEY.
So have hospitals.
> They have nearly perfected the art of delaying or denying
> treatment for sick people all in the name of the almighty dollar.
Service providers have perfected the art of ordering unnecessary tests and prescribing unnecessary medications (just look at the treatment history in TFA), either due to profit-seeking or downright incompetence. You could look at the delaying as the natural result of fraudulent expenses.
> In the US, healthcare and insurance are for-profit businesses. How
> much do you think a life insurance company would love it if they
> were able to see your entire birth-to-present health history?
> Insurance would be even less affordable than it is now.
Woah there, killer. I was with you until this part. You are correct about it being scary from a privacy perspective, but having that birth-to-present history would make insurance cheaper not more expensive. The more unknown there is, the more healthy people pay for unhealthy people, and the more EVERYONE pays for their insurance. If insurance agencies have more information, they can better estimate costs and therefore reduce their risk, which in the insurance world means lower premiums (assuming no government-sponsored monopolies).
> But when it can cost you the ability to get treatment that doesn't
> bankrupt you, it's a big problem!
Meaning... when it keeps you from socializing your high medical costs across every other premium payer
> I can't help but feel while reading 'The Data Model That Nearly Killed Me'
> that the problems encountered actually had very little to do with the
> electronic record system at all.
That's the whole point, right? We are looking at EHR as what's going to solve our health care costs problems. We're kidding ourselves, if we have these kinds of serious business process problems.
Dude, you don't get it. The point is that EHR is not a panacea and doesn't fix the major problems that plague the health industry. Incidentally, that's the title of the fscking slashdot post! Christ...