That's the difference between normal people and nerds. Normal people get obsessed over things too. But it's banal, uninteresting shit they get obsessed over. Sports, soap operas, miniature figurines, gun collections, etc. Nerds get obsessed over things that are actually interesting because they requires some thought. Normal people can't relate to it, so they label it and shun it as weird, geeky, nerdy, etc.
Is there any way you could have said that and come off as more of a snob? Or are gun collections or sports somehow less worthy of being obsessed over than a virtual farm?
In most other countries, the government is responsible for heathcare directly without any insurance companies. Is that what you want (it works for them).
What I want is irrelevant. We are talking about the merits or lack thereof of the "reform" legislation that was passed through Congress and signed into law by President Obama. Since you admit that said legislation bears no resemblance to the health care systems of other nations and that the insurance industry is a contributing factor to the ever increasing cost of health care, I'm curious to know why you support Obamacare?
Please note I'm not saying military is okay; I'm antiwar and think Obama is an ___ for not ending it in 2010 as he promised
He's also an ass for breaking his promise not to impose a health insurance mandate, his promise to support a filibuster of any bill containing telecom immunity, his promise not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000, blah, blah, blah.
Places all girls colleges close to the road. Make sure the athletic fields are visible from the road and the school uniforms are low cut and the school's policy is NOT BRAS or underpants.
That reminds me of a claim that I had to process when I worked in the insurance business. We had an insured come to report rear-ending someone. I asked him how it happened, his answer went something like: "Well, you see, there was this REALLY hot chick with BIG FUCKING TITS. And I was watching her walk down the road and BOOM. I hit the car in front of me."
but much of the country actually relies on it for commerce and communication. If large portions are unavailable, the costs could be very large, especially if such a tactic is used in conjunction with other attacks.
Thankfully the courts don't take weeks to decide such matters. I'd rather see a few banks shut down for a day than the President granted the power the unilaterally muzzle communications.
Would you want your cops to stop an arson in progress, or should they be forced to go through the courts first?
Bad analogy. Cops don't need a warrant to arrest someone for a crime in progress. They do however need a warrant before they can interfere with/monitor that person's communications.
My assumption is that this is intended to give the President the authority to shut down botnet controllers during DDoS attacks. Waiting for the courts in such a scenario is unreasonable.
Why is waiting for the courts unreasonable in such a scenario? We aren't talking about Jack Bauer standing over the nuclear weapon that's about to destroy New York City. We are talking about not being able to access a few portions of the internet for the duration of a DDoS attack.
No, I'm not a DSL "shrill". I receive my service through Time Warner -- 10 mbit/s (15mbit/s on RR Turbo) shared beats 1.5mbit/s dedicated any day of the week.
Your citation from DSLReports sounds great in theory but I've never seen Time Warner operate that way in my area. They have a single downstream channel for Roadrunner throughout this entire area. I've talked to engineers that admit that they often hook as many as four different nodes up to a single downstream card in the CMTS. Each node does have it's own upstream channel but the upstream is rarely where the bottleneck is.
They could deploy more downstream channels or even upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 but why would they bother? Verizon has no interest in deploying FiOS here and their DSL product can't compete with cable internet unless you are lucky enough to live across the street from the central office.
Basically, I would have a hard time denying someone a job solely based on ideals, even if said ideals are demented. If they aren't out actively beating up blacks or sodomizing little boys, what have they really done wrong?
You aren't denying them a job based on their ideals, you are denying them a job based on their negative impact on your company.
The US pays more primarily because of the ridiculous overhead in trying to account for every penny and bill everyone. It's lawyers and accountants, nothing more.
So the solution is to mandate that everyone receive their health care though huge insurance company and/or governmental bureaucracies? Yeah, that'll fix it.
Are you saying US doctors are completely incompetent? Put that with your attitude that the US is incapable of running a cost effective medical system and you seem to have a pretty low opinion of Americans.
No, I have a low opinion of the American tort system. Fail for trying to change the topic rather than address the issue at hand.
You seem to be the only one unaware that governmental agencies evolve over time.
That's true. They eventually fall victim to regulatory capture and wind up entrenching the very businesses that they were created to regulate, to the detriment of innovation and society as a whole.
It's the farce of "at-will" employment. You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
So what do you purpose to replace "at-will" employment?
You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
So if you found out one of your employees was a member of the KKK, you'd keep him on the payroll?
The Constitution, as originally conceived, allowed only white men who owned property eligible to vote.
Actually, the Constitution said nothing on the matter of voting. It was up to the States to determine who was eligible to vote. To a certain extent this remains true today -- the Feds impose a minimum standard (18 years old, no discrimination based on race) but the States are still free to impose certain restrictions (ex-cons can't vote in many states for instance) and those restrictions vary between the states.
I still think the best solution overall is to just not use social networking at all:)
Fixed that for you.
At the risk of having my own "get off my lawn!" moment, I've never understood the appeal in social networking. Trust me, your life is not that interesting.
by the way, I'm not in the U.S., I actually get what I pay for.
You might have worded that a little bit better. Canada and Australia have worse broadband networks than the US does. Most US users on DSL get what they pay for. Cable networks may or may not deliver the promised performance at all hours, but that's simply the nature of the beast. In my area Time Warner provides 10MBit/s service on a DOCSIS 1.1 network. That means that just four customers are enough to max out a node that serves dozens to hundreds of customers.
But nobody's obliged to declare how much salt they put into the dish.
So ask. If they refuse to tell you, then leave.
Sometimes I fail and it tastes bland, but I still feel myself better after eating my own cooking than anything tasty I ever bought from a fast-food.
Why are we talking about "fast food"? This particular piece of legislation would apply to every restaurant in New York State. Think the quality of your favorite white cloth establishment might go down when you remove an important tool from the Chef's toolbox?
So why are we paying twice the amount for the same product? Why did the Democrats climb into bed with big pharma rather than address this fundamental imbalance?
Tort is an aspect, but has very little to do with medical expenses overall.
Really? And what do you suppose their doc's spend on malpractice insurance vs. what ours spend? Moot point in any event. You admit there are major differences between our system and the Canadian one, thus proving that your prior comparison was (to use your words) bullshit.
That's exactly what this bill says. Buy insurance or else. Have you even read the bill that you are so ardently defending?
If you currently have private or company insurance, nothing about this bill will change that.
That's little more than a talking point. You can't promise that my company will keep my insurance. In fact by raising the cost of insurance you've made it less likely that they will do so. A better solution that would have required political courage (something lacking on both sides of the aisle I'm afraid) would have been to break the linkage between employment and insurance. That would have been painful in the short term but beneficial in the long term.
In Canada, you never pay, nor ever see a bill. Yet the costs are significantly lower than the US.
Apples to oranges. What do they pay for prescription drugs in Canada? How much do their Doctors make? What does their tort system look like?
Conservative bullshit
Calling something 'bullshit' does not rebut it.
If every other country can provide free health care that is less expensive than the US, why cant the US implement a similar program?
What makes you think that the legislation rammed through Congress bears any resemblance to the system used by "every other" country? It's not single-payer, it's a disgusting hybrid of excessive government regulation (telling you what kind of insurance you can buy) and excessive government mandate (telling you that you HAVE to buy it).
The system is already broken and costs too much - the insurance companies are getting rich off of peoples health problems.
So Obama's solution is to mandate that I must do business with them or else? Interesting way to solve the problem. Democrats attack on the insurance industry to drum up populist support while at the same time cutting backroom deals with them to buy their support and force every American citizen to do business with them. Makes you wonder who the Democrats are working for, doesn't it?
So I fail to see how adopting a system that the majority of the other countries in the world can implement cheaper than the US, will cost the US even more than the current ridiculous costs.
Those "ridiculous costs" are driven by a number of factors few of which are addressed by the reform legislation. Does the legislation do anything to end the practice of relying on insurance for routine expenses? Such practices shield consumers from the true cost of their care and encourage over consumption of medical services. The reform legislation does nothing to address this issue. Nor does it address the linkage of employment to insurance. In fact it reinforces this link by disallowing those of us with employer provided insurance from shopping in the exchanges.
Of course it was never the intention of the Democrats to fix any of the underlying issues with our system. Their overriding concern was to create a new entitlement program. They cared little for whether or not said program was sustainable and even less for those of us who are trapped in the existing broken system. In fact their "reform" will increase costs and take away what little free choice remains in the American medical system.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the difference between normal people and nerds. Normal people get obsessed over things too. But it's banal, uninteresting shit they get obsessed over. Sports, soap operas, miniature figurines, gun collections, etc. Nerds get obsessed over things that are actually interesting because they requires some thought. Normal people can't relate to it, so they label it and shun it as weird, geeky, nerdy, etc.
Is there any way you could have said that and come off as more of a snob? Or are gun collections or sports somehow less worthy of being obsessed over than a virtual farm?
Sure. h, t, t, p, colon, slash, slash, slashdot, dot, org.
With all [persiankitty.com] this [redtube.com] free [youporn.com] porn [bulldoglist.com] available on the net
You left out alt.binaries ;)
How did these guys manage to mess up? It doesn't seem to take a genius to sell sex online.
You mean people actually pay for porn on the internet? C'mon, it's been available for free for as long as the internet has been around.
In most other countries, the government is responsible for heathcare directly without any insurance companies. Is that what you want (it works for them).
What I want is irrelevant. We are talking about the merits or lack thereof of the "reform" legislation that was passed through Congress and signed into law by President Obama. Since you admit that said legislation bears no resemblance to the health care systems of other nations and that the insurance industry is a contributing factor to the ever increasing cost of health care, I'm curious to know why you support Obamacare?
Please note I'm not saying military is okay; I'm antiwar and think Obama is an ___ for not ending it in 2010 as he promised
He's also an ass for breaking his promise not to impose a health insurance mandate, his promise to support a filibuster of any bill containing telecom immunity, his promise not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000, blah, blah, blah.
Meet the new boss, same as the old.
*only valid in literate and civically active cultures
Have any of those existed since Athens?
Places all girls colleges close to the road. Make sure the athletic fields are visible from the road and the school uniforms are low cut and the school's policy is NOT BRAS or underpants.
That reminds me of a claim that I had to process when I worked in the insurance business. We had an insured come to report rear-ending someone. I asked him how it happened, his answer went something like: "Well, you see, there was this REALLY hot chick with BIG FUCKING TITS. And I was watching her walk down the road and BOOM. I hit the car in front of me."
At least he was honest about it ;)
but much of the country actually relies on it for commerce and communication. If large portions are unavailable, the costs could be very large, especially if such a tactic is used in conjunction with other attacks.
Thankfully the courts don't take weeks to decide such matters. I'd rather see a few banks shut down for a day than the President granted the power the unilaterally muzzle communications.
Would you want your cops to stop an arson in progress, or should they be forced to go through the courts first?
Bad analogy. Cops don't need a warrant to arrest someone for a crime in progress. They do however need a warrant before they can interfere with/monitor that person's communications.
My assumption is that this is intended to give the President the authority to shut down botnet controllers during DDoS attacks. Waiting for the courts in such a scenario is unreasonable.
Why is waiting for the courts unreasonable in such a scenario? We aren't talking about Jack Bauer standing over the nuclear weapon that's about to destroy New York City. We are talking about not being able to access a few portions of the internet for the duration of a DDoS attack.
No, I'm not a DSL "shrill". I receive my service through Time Warner -- 10 mbit/s (15mbit/s on RR Turbo) shared beats 1.5mbit/s dedicated any day of the week.
Your citation from DSLReports sounds great in theory but I've never seen Time Warner operate that way in my area. They have a single downstream channel for Roadrunner throughout this entire area. I've talked to engineers that admit that they often hook as many as four different nodes up to a single downstream card in the CMTS. Each node does have it's own upstream channel but the upstream is rarely where the bottleneck is.
They could deploy more downstream channels or even upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 but why would they bother? Verizon has no interest in deploying FiOS here and their DSL product can't compete with cable internet unless you are lucky enough to live across the street from the central office.
Basically, I would have a hard time denying someone a job solely based on ideals, even if said ideals are demented. If they aren't out actively beating up blacks or sodomizing little boys, what have they really done wrong?
You aren't denying them a job based on their ideals, you are denying them a job based on their negative impact on your company.
The US pays more primarily because of the ridiculous overhead in trying to account for every penny and bill everyone. It's lawyers and accountants, nothing more.
So the solution is to mandate that everyone receive their health care though huge insurance company and/or governmental bureaucracies? Yeah, that'll fix it.
Are you saying US doctors are completely incompetent? Put that with your attitude that the US is incapable of running a cost effective medical system and you seem to have a pretty low opinion of Americans.
No, I have a low opinion of the American tort system. Fail for trying to change the topic rather than address the issue at hand.
Why wouldn't you keep the employee on the payroll if he was a member of the KKK?
Public relations? The welfare of the remaining employees/shareholders if his political views become public knowledge and your company is boycotted?
Wouldn't refusing to tolerate someone with a different opinion about tolerating different people be a little hypocritical?
Alright, then would you keep a NAMBLA member on the payroll?
You seem to be the only one unaware that governmental agencies evolve over time.
That's true. They eventually fall victim to regulatory capture and wind up entrenching the very businesses that they were created to regulate, to the detriment of innovation and society as a whole.
It's the farce of "at-will" employment. You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
So what do you purpose to replace "at-will" employment?
You're not really free when expressing your political opinions outside of work could cause you to lose your job.
So if you found out one of your employees was a member of the KKK, you'd keep him on the payroll?
The Constitution, as originally conceived, allowed only white men who owned property eligible to vote.
Actually, the Constitution said nothing on the matter of voting. It was up to the States to determine who was eligible to vote. To a certain extent this remains true today -- the Feds impose a minimum standard (18 years old, no discrimination based on race) but the States are still free to impose certain restrictions (ex-cons can't vote in many states for instance) and those restrictions vary between the states.
I still think the best solution overall is to just not use social networking at all :)
Fixed that for you.
At the risk of having my own "get off my lawn!" moment, I've never understood the appeal in social networking. Trust me, your life is not that interesting.
by the way, I'm not in the U.S., I actually get what I pay for.
You might have worded that a little bit better. Canada and Australia have worse broadband networks than the US does. Most US users on DSL get what they pay for. Cable networks may or may not deliver the promised performance at all hours, but that's simply the nature of the beast. In my area Time Warner provides 10MBit/s service on a DOCSIS 1.1 network. That means that just four customers are enough to max out a node that serves dozens to hundreds of customers.
Except when the ISP has a monopoly on broadband in the area. Which is one of the reasons we have the FCC.
That's funny, I could have sworn the FCC was created in 1934 to regulate the airwaves.
But nobody's obliged to declare how much salt they put into the dish.
So ask. If they refuse to tell you, then leave.
Sometimes I fail and it tastes bland, but I still feel myself better after eating my own cooking than anything tasty I ever bought from a fast-food.
Why are we talking about "fast food"? This particular piece of legislation would apply to every restaurant in New York State. Think the quality of your favorite white cloth establishment might go down when you remove an important tool from the Chef's toolbox?
About half of what the US pays
So why are we paying twice the amount for the same product? Why did the Democrats climb into bed with big pharma rather than address this fundamental imbalance?
Tort is an aspect, but has very little to do with medical expenses overall.
Really? And what do you suppose their doc's spend on malpractice insurance vs. what ours spend? Moot point in any event. You admit there are major differences between our system and the Canadian one, thus proving that your prior comparison was (to use your words) bullshit.
The problem is that unhealthy citizens cost money to society.
So do unproductive ones, but liberals don't seem to mind subsidizing them in exchange for votes.....
That's not what the bill says at all.
That's exactly what this bill says. Buy insurance or else. Have you even read the bill that you are so ardently defending?
If you currently have private or company insurance, nothing about this bill will change that.
That's little more than a talking point. You can't promise that my company will keep my insurance. In fact by raising the cost of insurance you've made it less likely that they will do so. A better solution that would have required political courage (something lacking on both sides of the aisle I'm afraid) would have been to break the linkage between employment and insurance. That would have been painful in the short term but beneficial in the long term.
In Canada, you never pay, nor ever see a bill. Yet the costs are significantly lower than the US.
Apples to oranges. What do they pay for prescription drugs in Canada? How much do their Doctors make? What does their tort system look like?
Conservative bullshit
Calling something 'bullshit' does not rebut it.
If every other country can provide free health care that is less expensive than the US, why cant the US implement a similar program?
What makes you think that the legislation rammed through Congress bears any resemblance to the system used by "every other" country? It's not single-payer, it's a disgusting hybrid of excessive government regulation (telling you what kind of insurance you can buy) and excessive government mandate (telling you that you HAVE to buy it).
The system is already broken and costs too much - the insurance companies are getting rich off of peoples health problems.
So Obama's solution is to mandate that I must do business with them or else? Interesting way to solve the problem. Democrats attack on the insurance industry to drum up populist support while at the same time cutting backroom deals with them to buy their support and force every American citizen to do business with them. Makes you wonder who the Democrats are working for, doesn't it?
So I fail to see how adopting a system that the majority of the other countries in the world can implement cheaper than the US, will cost the US even more than the current ridiculous costs.
Those "ridiculous costs" are driven by a number of factors few of which are addressed by the reform legislation. Does the legislation do anything to end the practice of relying on insurance for routine expenses? Such practices shield consumers from the true cost of their care and encourage over consumption of medical services. The reform legislation does nothing to address this issue. Nor does it address the linkage of employment to insurance. In fact it reinforces this link by disallowing those of us with employer provided insurance from shopping in the exchanges.
Of course it was never the intention of the Democrats to fix any of the underlying issues with our system. Their overriding concern was to create a new entitlement program. They cared little for whether or not said program was sustainable and even less for those of us who are trapped in the existing broken system. In fact their "reform" will increase costs and take away what little free choice remains in the American medical system.