Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings
on
Facebook Forming a PAC
·
· Score: 1
typically yes. i guess its because most of them are fresh out of college and aren't aware that life and politic ideologies don't exactly work as they where supposed to when explained to them.
Here is something interesting. young democrats tend to become old republicans once the accumulate wealth and attempt to protect it and their families.
not really. Obama didn't win by a lot in comparative terms to previous elections. he's probably not going to be able to generate near the support he had originally to get elected.
in fact, he's likely caused a surge in potential turn out against him. I know life long democrats who do nothing but complain about Obama every time the name is brought up.
It wouldn't be going against their oath to the constitution as the constitution specifically provides for this type of discourse. The very amendment they are trying to get around specifically allows them to discuss it. The problem is, if they act, then the proper way is to get a constitutional amendment allowing their actions to be exempted from the first amendment before creating a law. But they appear to be attempting to find ways around the constitution which may or may not be constitutional depending on your views (IE living document that can be interpreted anyway you feel is appropriate with the times).
I agree in sentiment with what you are saying though.
Now, with your corporation example, Suppose the defrauding the public was over billing insurance companies and medicare to create a charity that provides advanced treatment for children who have terminal illnesses successfully extending many of their lives for decades in an attempt to market their treatments to patients covered by insurance companies.
Do you feel the same in that situation? I only pose it because this is seemingly devised to "think of the children" which I don't think changes much.
Where is this list of stuff in the obamacare reforms? 80% or better of the bill required the reforms to be created by commity or some department once enacted. You have yet to see what obamacare actually is unless it's the concepts outlines that you agree with.
Most PACs, at least the more visible ones, tend to be disguised arms of political candidates and parties. Take the AARP for instance, They have never showed support for any republican concept in the last 20 years, unless it was in a primary contest and purposed by one of the lesser popular candidates. they drop that stand or ignore it in term elections.
You know, when a company or organization has a large volunteer base of affiliates, its just a matter of time before someone gets the idea of exploiting it for political gain.
The interesting thing here might be the ability of political candidates to use the service within their campaigns or not in the future. Maybe that is what they are looking for.
This argument, valid or not, is sort of irrelevant here. Nothing in this health care law is going to limit or decrease the costs of medical care. The only thing it will do is cause more people to share the costs.
I'm not saying this to be for or against the health care law, just to note that it doesn't address the issue you brought up. And it should also be noted that one of the reasons why health care in the US is so expensive is because of government involvement in the first place. Social security/medicare pays a set max amount for any medical procedure or treatment based on the average in the area. This encourages the providers to inflate the costs so the average increase and the government pays them more. It gets a little more complicated when medicare started not paying full price and HMO's get discounts on the full price instead of the average price being correlated to what they actually pay.
The federal government gives you an out called bankruptcy. But i really wanted to chime in with your comment on HMOs.
Do you realize that HMO's were created by the government in the mid 1960s? They have been governed by the federal government ever since then. What you see with the HMOs that is wrong with the health care system is what government health care will be like under any system they control. Why do we know this, because we already have HMOs that the government created with the HMO act and has regulated for more then 40 years. Obama's answer to death panels was that these decisions are already being made either by HMOs or family members who can't afford the treatments.
BTW, before the HMO act, companies would employ doctors or set up private hospitals and offer services as a benefit of working for that company. The larger operations were usually conglomerations of efforts between several companies. Firestone as early as 1915 or 1925 had a state of the art company medical facility in Ohio that people not even employees by them came to from out of state to seek treatment.
If those facilities and benefits weren't available, there was always insurance. This type of insurance was called indemnity insurance and could be purchased for any single illness or a variety of them. You can still get accidental indemnity insurance today that covers just about any accidental injury you might encounter like falling and breaking a hip or wrecking your bike into a telephone pole and needing 60 stitches or something. Minor illnesses didn't cost as much because people had to pay them out of their own pocket and they would only pay so much before declining treatment.
Now, HMO insurance covers everything and they charge as much as possible. But that is more of a function of medicare then HMO's. HMO's piggyback on the same payment systems as medicare uses. Medicare pays only a percentage of the actual bill based on an average cost of the procedures or illness in the geographical area. It's in the interest of the medical providers in those areas to inflate their bills to as high as possible in order for the medicare rate to increase by causing average costs. HMOs collect people for a network of health providers who get the same or similar discount as medicare/medicaid does so providers are again, encourage by design to increase their prices to raise the average costs so the discount is more inline with their expected profits.
The US government saw this inflation happening and addressed it by limiting the amount of markup on certain/most providers or the supplies used in the treatment of illnesses and conditions over costs to them. The interesting thing is that once these limits were in place, all markups were the max and health costs soared yet again.
I know this sounds counter to what you have been lead to believe, but in all reality, the state of US health care as it exist today and you just complained about, is largely the result of the federal government being involved already. After reading the health care law and hearing discussions on it, I see nothing that will change what seems to be upsetting you.
No, but religious fundies trying to rewrite the state curriculum have a lot to do with failing schools.
Cite this please. Your opinion does not make a fact. Your observations seem to be counter to the rest of the worlds'. I'm willing to bet that the decline in Texas schools is more related to the decline in average income per household in Texas and the need for more working parents to concentrate on paying the bills then the religious affiliation of any school board member.
Except that funding HAS been removed. So your entire argument is invalid.
lol.. The argument is not invalid. it was designed to get you to use your brain. Any increase in tuition will cause a decrease in the percentage of state funding unless the state funding is increased with it. Let's walk through some math here since you can't seem to grasp the concept. If tuition is $100 and the state funds 10% of that, they fund $10. If the state decreases their funding by ten percent, They will be at a total of 9% funding or $9. Now if the tuition is increased by 30% to $130, the state's funding is at about 7%.
You admit that state funding has dropped, and tuition has increased. But you play it off as if the difference in percentage is solely because of cuts in state funding. This is completely misleading because as I said, even if the state funding stays the same, increases in tuition will cause a lower percent being paid by the state. Now 7% is less then 9% of the total funding, but dropping $1 or 10% is less detrimental in this number then raising tuition by $30 or 30%.
You see, looking at the simple math (and I mean simple math- nothing above a middle school level here), your notion seems to be a bit loony in the way it was presented to anyone capable of the least bit of critical thinking.
source for what? we have public school system in the US that perform below the standards set just to keep home schooled kids passing.and out of public schools.
Of course this will vary from different areas, and it is not a blanket one is better, but here are some interesting stories showing it..
although demographically adjusted numbers still support the claim that there are some religious school run by religious fundies that out perform public-secular schools.,
Lol.. I used to admire your posts but now I just laugh.
First, there is only one school board that Perry had access to stuff, and that wasn't true for the last 20 years either.
Second, Religious fundies do not automagically make a school system fail. MAny religious schools ran by the same type of religious findies, perform well above secular schools dominated by liberals. So throwing the hit on religious fundies in there achieved what with reality?
Also, do you understand that if tuition goes up, and state funding stays the same, it's automatically a lower percentage of tuition without removing any funding? Where you edumacated in Texas?
I'm not really going to get into the entire requiring teachers to be certified in what they teach. I mean the entire just throw someone trained in physical education in there teaching math and literature, and computer sciences scheme from the past worked so well, that the teaching certificates most states require must have been just a money grab scam designed to take more from people putting themselves out there for the public good. I agree, it's pure nonsense.
They always cater to the largest common denominator.
FTFY.
I agree too. We need the government properly educating everyone to believe the same things and the same ways. That's a proper and fit role for the government. Indoctrination is just a word that sounds scary because it's been abused in the past.
Education is not mandated by the federal government.
They do tie funding to attendance, but there is not federal law requiring anyone to be educated. The federal government was largely absent from education until the mid 1970s. Education is a state matter.
Outside of you sounding like an ideologue idiot, you might want to point out that the US did the same thing with CDs except the distinguished between music CDs and data CDs.
The fun thing is listening to the best buy drones make crap up when you ask them what the difference is. I liked one excuse where the guy went into great detail explaining the difference in sound quality the CD would produce.
Look up mens rea. I'm not sure I could explain it much better then that.
I do know a guy who shot his wife in the head and killed her, then called the EMS. Because the intent and state of mind (Mens Rea) is built into the murder/homicide statutes, he ended up getting convicted of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced (actually, he got re-sentenced because of some lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of floating sentences like 5-15 years) 8 years total and is now back on the streets without parole or probation or anything of the sort. If it wasn't for a mandatory 3 years for the gun spec that runs before any other time, he would have been out free and clear in 5 years.
Of course he claimed he pulled the gun out to shoot himself during an argument, she talked him out of doing it, and it went off when putting it down. Claimed he thought it was unloaded which is the only reason he would have put it to his own head.
You give up certain rights when choosing to work for the government. In the scope of employment, the government is afforded most all of the same leeway that private enterprise is with respect to that employment.
You are right in that the government can't just declare someone an employee and do virtually what they want. The employee and employer relationship will be established pretty soundly long before whatever comes into question. There are a few exceptions to this though, like when President Reagan drafted the airline flight controllers and fired them all because they walked off the job in a strike that left hundreds of planes in the air with no controllers to safely guide them in putting many innocent lives in danger..
Well, the whitelist would be more work related then general surfing so if some corner of the list allows downloading of pirated materials. your pretty much screwed anyways.
Costs and defending against liability is what makes it easier. You essentially have to pay for several internet connections to proxy from another country and even if that technically gets you beyond the reach of the law, that will not be known for sure until someone accuses you and it is litigated. While that is going on, there is damage to the company reputation and all that stuff to deal with. It's a lot easier to maintain a reputation by saying, we put x, Y, and Z, in place in an attempt to make this impossible to happen but unfortunately, something got by us and the we will pay the fines and work harder on ensuring it doesn't happen again, then it would be by saying, well, technically we are not guilty because we routed all our traffic through another country and used a shell company to lease the connections there so the shell company is liable and this will be proven in court some 6months or longer when we have our day.
Of course this would be exposed by a disgruntles ex employee if you are wondering how they would ever know. I've seen ex-employees do all sorts of crazy things attempting to get their former employer in some sort of trouble. And I've seen former employers do some pretty alarming things in efforts to snowball ex employees. I've walked away from customers who insist on badmouthing the former IT staff and employees.
But on another note, why would a company decide to pay for another connection in another country, presumable going through a shell company they had to create to disassociate the connection from them, instead of simply locking the user's internet access down and create a termination policy for those insistent on getting around it?
Or easier yet, monitor usage for several months and white list valid sites while default blocking everything.
I do that at a couple sites I mange where the employees have consistently abused the internet to the point it was causing virus problems and creating serious work flow issues while some employees played internet games instead of taking care of customers. They still get to surf some non-business sites, have two dedicated systems they can use to check outside email and stuff, but for the most part, are locked into approved sites and programs on the systems.
It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy then. We use elements of a democracy to effect our republic though, but both situations are inherent to the fact that votes could mean little to nothing if you are not in the majority of those voting.
I guess the illusion, if any is actually present, is what a democracy can achieve. You want one thing and have 9 friends who believe the same, I want the opposite and have 10 friends who believe the same. Well, I know of ten disappointed people who think their votes didn't mean anything.
That's how a democracy works. What people seem to want when they speak ill of a democracy or a democratic process is some system that compromises and makes both people happy as if the thing you wanted was a new bicycle and the thing i wanted was a red bicycle or something. In our republic, we both could be expecting a bicycle and one representative thinks getting you the cash to buy your own budget brand is best while the other wants to get you a 1960's model rocket racer, while all along, you were expecting a half way decent 15 speed mountain bike with shock absorbers. In the end, it's still not what we wanted even though it's technically what we asked for. Did our vote mean anything? Probably not in most people's minds.
BTW, this is without even going into the entire aspect of whether the government should be legitimately providing bicycles to the people in the first place which is a good deal of where people get upset with elected officials not doing their bidding.
Why is that? The Israelis seem to do it quite well and there would be nothing that would single right wing retards or even brilliant republicans out over the rest of the population.
i think his point was that he had done it for the unwashed masses. I can agree with him too. I've done bios updates to cure many issues with other people's computers. for all those unwashed masses out there, they probably have needed to flash the bios but paid someone else to do it when their system became too unstable. So instead of flashing it themselves, they paid some repair tech $150 to fix their system.
Slashdot Mirror
typically yes. i guess its because most of them are fresh out of college and aren't aware that life and politic ideologies don't exactly work as they where supposed to when explained to them.
Here is something interesting. young democrats tend to become old republicans once the accumulate wealth and attempt to protect it and their families.
not really. Obama didn't win by a lot in comparative terms to previous elections. he's probably not going to be able to generate near the support he had originally to get elected.
in fact, he's likely caused a surge in potential turn out against him. I know life long democrats who do nothing but complain about Obama every time the name is brought up.
since when is donating to candidates who have like minded opinions corrupt too? It's one of the cornerstones of most free political systems
It wouldn't be going against their oath to the constitution as the constitution specifically provides for this type of discourse. The very amendment they are trying to get around specifically allows them to discuss it. The problem is, if they act, then the proper way is to get a constitutional amendment allowing their actions to be exempted from the first amendment before creating a law. But they appear to be attempting to find ways around the constitution which may or may not be constitutional depending on your views (IE living document that can be interpreted anyway you feel is appropriate with the times).
I agree in sentiment with what you are saying though.
Now, with your corporation example, Suppose the defrauding the public was over billing insurance companies and medicare to create a charity that provides advanced treatment for children who have terminal illnesses successfully extending many of their lives for decades in an attempt to market their treatments to patients covered by insurance companies.
Do you feel the same in that situation? I only pose it because this is seemingly devised to "think of the children" which I don't think changes much.
Where is this list of stuff in the obamacare reforms? 80% or better of the bill required the reforms to be created by commity or some department once enacted. You have yet to see what obamacare actually is unless it's the concepts outlines that you agree with.
Most PACs, at least the more visible ones, tend to be disguised arms of political candidates and parties. Take the AARP for instance, They have never showed support for any republican concept in the last 20 years, unless it was in a primary contest and purposed by one of the lesser popular candidates. they drop that stand or ignore it in term elections.
You know, when a company or organization has a large volunteer base of affiliates, its just a matter of time before someone gets the idea of exploiting it for political gain.
The interesting thing here might be the ability of political candidates to use the service within their campaigns or not in the future. Maybe that is what they are looking for.
This argument, valid or not, is sort of irrelevant here. Nothing in this health care law is going to limit or decrease the costs of medical care. The only thing it will do is cause more people to share the costs.
I'm not saying this to be for or against the health care law, just to note that it doesn't address the issue you brought up. And it should also be noted that one of the reasons why health care in the US is so expensive is because of government involvement in the first place. Social security/medicare pays a set max amount for any medical procedure or treatment based on the average in the area. This encourages the providers to inflate the costs so the average increase and the government pays them more. It gets a little more complicated when medicare started not paying full price and HMO's get discounts on the full price instead of the average price being correlated to what they actually pay.
The federal government gives you an out called bankruptcy. But i really wanted to chime in with your comment on HMOs.
Do you realize that HMO's were created by the government in the mid 1960s? They have been governed by the federal government ever since then. What you see with the HMOs that is wrong with the health care system is what government health care will be like under any system they control. Why do we know this, because we already have HMOs that the government created with the HMO act and has regulated for more then 40 years. Obama's answer to death panels was that these decisions are already being made either by HMOs or family members who can't afford the treatments.
BTW, before the HMO act, companies would employ doctors or set up private hospitals and offer services as a benefit of working for that company. The larger operations were usually conglomerations of efforts between several companies. Firestone as early as 1915 or 1925 had a state of the art company medical facility in Ohio that people not even employees by them came to from out of state to seek treatment.
If those facilities and benefits weren't available, there was always insurance. This type of insurance was called indemnity insurance and could be purchased for any single illness or a variety of them. You can still get accidental indemnity insurance today that covers just about any accidental injury you might encounter like falling and breaking a hip or wrecking your bike into a telephone pole and needing 60 stitches or something. Minor illnesses didn't cost as much because people had to pay them out of their own pocket and they would only pay so much before declining treatment.
Now, HMO insurance covers everything and they charge as much as possible. But that is more of a function of medicare then HMO's. HMO's piggyback on the same payment systems as medicare uses. Medicare pays only a percentage of the actual bill based on an average cost of the procedures or illness in the geographical area. It's in the interest of the medical providers in those areas to inflate their bills to as high as possible in order for the medicare rate to increase by causing average costs. HMOs collect people for a network of health providers who get the same or similar discount as medicare/medicaid does so providers are again, encourage by design to increase their prices to raise the average costs so the discount is more inline with their expected profits.
The US government saw this inflation happening and addressed it by limiting the amount of markup on certain/most providers or the supplies used in the treatment of illnesses and conditions over costs to them. The interesting thing is that once these limits were in place, all markups were the max and health costs soared yet again.
I know this sounds counter to what you have been lead to believe, but in all reality, the state of US health care as it exist today and you just complained about, is largely the result of the federal government being involved already. After reading the health care law and hearing discussions on it, I see nothing that will change what seems to be upsetting you.
Cite this please. Your opinion does not make a fact. Your observations seem to be counter to the rest of the worlds'. I'm willing to bet that the decline in Texas schools is more related to the decline in average income per household in Texas and the need for more working parents to concentrate on paying the bills then the religious affiliation of any school board member.
lol.. The argument is not invalid. it was designed to get you to use your brain. Any increase in tuition will cause a decrease in the percentage of state funding unless the state funding is increased with it. Let's walk through some math here since you can't seem to grasp the concept. If tuition is $100 and the state funds 10% of that, they fund $10. If the state decreases their funding by ten percent, They will be at a total of 9% funding or $9. Now if the tuition is increased by 30% to $130, the state's funding is at about 7%.
You admit that state funding has dropped, and tuition has increased. But you play it off as if the difference in percentage is solely because of cuts in state funding. This is completely misleading because as I said, even if the state funding stays the same, increases in tuition will cause a lower percent being paid by the state. Now 7% is less then 9% of the total funding, but dropping $1 or 10% is less detrimental in this number then raising tuition by $30 or 30%.
You see, looking at the simple math (and I mean simple math- nothing above a middle school level here), your notion seems to be a bit loony in the way it was presented to anyone capable of the least bit of critical thinking.
source for what? we have public school system in the US that perform below the standards set just to keep home schooled kids passing.and out of public schools.
Of course this will vary from different areas, and it is not a blanket one is better, but here are some interesting stories showing it..
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/11320
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/3852653/Faith-school-pupils-outperforming-others-at-every-age.html
http://www.examiner.com/christian-history-in-national/catholic-high-schools-outperform-the-competition
and just to keep a perspective, it appears that if you adjust the schools performances for demographics, its a different result.
http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/576/mythifying-public-school-claims
although demographically adjusted numbers still support the claim that there are some religious school run by religious fundies that out perform public-secular schools.,
Lol.. I used to admire your posts but now
I just laugh.
First, there is only one school board that Perry had access to stuff, and that wasn't true for the last 20 years either.
Second, Religious fundies do not automagically make a school system fail. MAny religious schools ran by the same type of religious findies, perform well above secular schools dominated by liberals. So throwing the hit on religious fundies in there achieved what with reality?
Also, do you understand that if tuition goes up, and state funding stays the same, it's automatically a lower percentage of tuition without removing any funding? Where you edumacated in Texas?
I'm not really going to get into the entire requiring teachers to be certified in what they teach. I mean the entire just throw someone trained in physical education in there teaching math and literature, and computer sciences scheme from the past worked so well, that the teaching certificates most states require must have been just a money grab scam designed to take more from people putting themselves out there for the public good. I agree, it's pure nonsense.
They always cater to the largest common denominator.
FTFY.
I agree too. We need the government properly educating everyone to believe the same things and the same ways. That's a proper and fit role for the government. Indoctrination is just a word that sounds scary because it's been abused in the past.
Education is not mandated by the federal government.
They do tie funding to attendance, but there is not federal law requiring anyone to be educated. The federal government was largely absent from education until the mid 1970s. Education is a state matter.
Wow.. are you the unintelligent misinformed idiot of the month.
None of that is remotely true. the debate is over who controls it and taxes for it. Not whether it happens or not.
Outside of you sounding like an ideologue idiot, you might want to point out that the US did the same thing with CDs except the distinguished between music CDs and data CDs.
The fun thing is listening to the best buy drones make crap up when you ask them what the difference is. I liked one excuse where the guy went into great detail explaining the difference in sound quality the CD would produce.
Look up mens rea. I'm not sure I could explain it much better then that.
I do know a guy who shot his wife in the head and killed her, then called the EMS. Because the intent and state of mind (Mens Rea) is built into the murder/homicide statutes, he ended up getting convicted of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced (actually, he got re-sentenced because of some lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of floating sentences like 5-15 years) 8 years total and is now back on the streets without parole or probation or anything of the sort. If it wasn't for a mandatory 3 years for the gun spec that runs before any other time, he would have been out free and clear in 5 years.
Of course he claimed he pulled the gun out to shoot himself during an argument, she talked him out of doing it, and it went off when putting it down. Claimed he thought it was unloaded which is the only reason he would have put it to his own head.
You give up certain rights when choosing to work for the government. In the scope of employment, the government is afforded most all of the same leeway that private enterprise is with respect to that employment.
You are right in that the government can't just declare someone an employee and do virtually what they want. The employee and employer relationship will be established pretty soundly long before whatever comes into question. There are a few exceptions to this though, like when President Reagan drafted the airline flight controllers and fired them all because they walked off the job in a strike that left hundreds of planes in the air with no controllers to safely guide them in putting many innocent lives in danger..
Well, the whitelist would be more work related then general surfing so if some corner of the list allows downloading of pirated materials. your pretty much screwed anyways.
Costs and defending against liability is what makes it easier. You essentially have to pay for several internet connections to proxy from another country and even if that technically gets you beyond the reach of the law, that will not be known for sure until someone accuses you and it is litigated. While that is going on, there is damage to the company reputation and all that stuff to deal with. It's a lot easier to maintain a reputation by saying, we put x, Y, and Z, in place in an attempt to make this impossible to happen but unfortunately, something got by us and the we will pay the fines and work harder on ensuring it doesn't happen again, then it would be by saying, well, technically we are not guilty because we routed all our traffic through another country and used a shell company to lease the connections there so the shell company is liable and this will be proven in court some 6months or longer when we have our day.
Of course this would be exposed by a disgruntles ex employee if you are wondering how they would ever know. I've seen ex-employees do all sorts of crazy things attempting to get their former employer in some sort of trouble. And I've seen former employers do some pretty alarming things in efforts to snowball ex employees. I've walked away from customers who insist on badmouthing the former IT staff and employees.
But on another note, why would a company decide to pay for another connection in another country, presumable going through a shell company they had to create to disassociate the connection from them, instead of simply locking the user's internet access down and create a termination policy for those insistent on getting around it?
Or easier yet, monitor usage for several months and white list valid sites while default blocking everything.
I do that at a couple sites I mange where the employees have consistently abused the internet to the point it was causing virus problems and creating serious work flow issues while some employees played internet games instead of taking care of customers. They still get to surf some non-business sites, have two dedicated systems they can use to check outside email and stuff, but for the most part, are locked into approved sites and programs on the systems.
It's a good thing we don't live in a democracy then. We use elements of a democracy to effect our republic though, but both situations are inherent to the fact that votes could mean little to nothing if you are not in the majority of those voting.
I guess the illusion, if any is actually present, is what a democracy can achieve. You want one thing and have 9 friends who believe the same, I want the opposite and have 10 friends who believe the same. Well, I know of ten disappointed people who think their votes didn't mean anything.
That's how a democracy works. What people seem to want when they speak ill of a democracy or a democratic process is some system that compromises and makes both people happy as if the thing you wanted was a new bicycle and the thing i wanted was a red bicycle or something. In our republic, we both could be expecting a bicycle and one representative thinks getting you the cash to buy your own budget brand is best while the other wants to get you a 1960's model rocket racer, while all along, you were expecting a half way decent 15 speed mountain bike with shock absorbers. In the end, it's still not what we wanted even though it's technically what we asked for. Did our vote mean anything? Probably not in most people's minds.
BTW, this is without even going into the entire aspect of whether the government should be legitimately providing bicycles to the people in the first place which is a good deal of where people get upset with elected officials not doing their bidding.
Why is that? The Israelis seem to do it quite well and there would be nothing that would single right wing retards or even brilliant republicans out over the rest of the population.
would that be the three pound, eight pound, or 20 pound bag of ice?
that's probably why he mentioned that colonel public got promoted recently.
i think his point was that he had done it for the unwashed masses. I can agree with him too. I've done bios updates to cure many issues with other people's computers. for all those unwashed masses out there, they probably have needed to flash the bios but paid someone else to do it when their system became too unstable. So instead of flashing it themselves, they paid some repair tech $150 to fix their system.