I'm going to take a wild guess that the calls were recorded for one of (or perhaps all) of the following reasons:
1. Government mandate. We are talking government-run healthcare, after all, and we know how governments love to keep treasure troves of data on its citizens. 2. Liability, especially in a malpractice suit. You can show that the caller didn't "provide enough information to allow for proper advice to be administered, so, your honor, the heart attack isn't our fault." 3. Quality assurance and training purposes.
"It's not a tax or a fine, it's an incentive! Honest!"
It's a tax. Why can't the tax-and-spend types ever be honest about that kind of thing?
When you get down to it, if you want people to upgrade their buildings, then you have to make it worth their money and time. In many cases, a simple education campaign would help. If you can show that a building 60 years old can save, I dunno let's pick a number, 25% in energy costs over the year with a $X investment, then you don't need to force people to do anything. Many will do it on their own.
Unless, of course, you're poor.
You see, poor people are - imagine this - poor. They don't have the money. They can't just dump thousands of dollars into new insulation and other materials. They can't get a loan to do it and, if they could, they would spend more in interest payments than the original project. So, the idea is to jack up prices on people who already can't afford much and certainly can't afford to upgrade things? Yeah...
And then, what about the energy involved in producing the new materials, installing it, stripping out the old stuff, and disposing of it? What about the waste? Every building in the city? I've seen how fast those union workers do their jobs.
I get the intention. We want people to have energy efficient homes. I do too. Over the long term it is better for everyone. But you can't just wave the Magic Wand of Regulation. It's not that simple. Keep jacking up taxes? You can, but remember: the wealthy can live anywhere they choose. They're wealthy. And when taxes get too high they will leave in droves. Illinois already has massive debt problems. They can't afford to sacrifice any more blood dolls.
We can make all the magical pie in the sky plans we want, and there is a place for dreaming up ideals as something to shoot for, but you still have to fund the damn thing.
Maybe it presents some interesting ideas in an easy-to-understand way. You don't have to agree with a point of view in order to recommend reading about it... In fact, approaching beliefs that differ from your own, with an open mind, is the best way to learn about what you believe.
You're never going to learn anything if you only read material you agree with...
It is propaganda. Notice how they mention "regulations and carbon pricing," and you must also be aware that "renewable" energies are often heavily subsidized. You can make anything unprofitable with enough government interference in the free market.
Don't know about California, I'm based out of Ohio. Do software work remotely. Definitely don't pay 40% in income taxes but I wouldn't be surprised if people did in California.
Do you know what I did when I was getting paid crap and was working too many hours? I told my employer that I was going to quit and find work somewhere else. One of two things happened: I got a raise / better conditions, or I found a better job.
In more populous states and in the cities especially, it's very easy to find work. Let the free market do its thing. If a company wants better workers, pay more and treat them better. If your employer is crap, leave. It actually does work.
Please note that it's the Republican Party more than the political right. The Republicans are a centrist party. The closest thing you will get to a politically "right" party these days are the Libertarian or Federalist parties.
You don't have to keep or manage information if you can just make up whatever you want and cite "a source familiar with the situation." I have never before in my life seen news organizations rely so heavily on anonymous sources. CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc., they slap whatever they want up onto their sites, say that "someone told them so," and when the story is later proven false, eh, maybe they issue a correction. Maybe. Mostly they just let it sit out there.
Pretty sad, but news organizations don't seem to care about the truth anymore. They care more about pushing an agenda and, even more so, making money. What gets money right now? Yup, trying to convince the world that Trump is the next Adolf Hitler, we're all going to turn into cannibals by 2040, and every police officer in America just wants to shoot black people for funsies.
It's pretty sad. I get more reliable, fact-driven news about the USA from European sources than domestic sources.
Hate Trump all you want (I'm not a fan either), but he has thrust into the spotlight what many people have known for a long, long time now: The major news media companies are Democrat party lapdogs (save Fox News, which is a Republican party lapdog but that is changing with the Murdochs running the channel). I don't see it getting any better either, because as long as they publish negative stories about Trump (and glowing stories about Obama and Clinton) their audience doesn't care if the stories are true or not. They're stuck in a tribal mindset. "My people GOOD. Those people BAD."
And that's it. That's all most people seem to care about anymore. Us vs. Them. The truth doesn't have a place in Us vs. Them. Us vs. Them makes money, it makes you Feel Good, it makes you crave more.
Instead of Us vs. Them, all of this rampant tribalism, I highly suggest trying Truth vs. Fiction. Be on the side of Truth. If that means your guy is a jerk sometimes, well, then your guy is a jerk. If it means the other guy does something good, well, he does something good. What's wrong with that?
You cannot have a meaningful dialogue about anything if you don't start from a position of truth.
Precisely. It isn't as if they hide everyone else's products. It isn't as if you're forced to use Google. If Google wants to put its own stuff at the top, what's wrong with that? It isn't as if someone is being tricked. "Gosh, gMail, Google' email product, I wonder if that has anything to do with - MY GOD, IT DOES! THOSE BASTARDS TRICKED ME!"
This is the same kind of crap with Microsoft having IE as the default browser.
Am I supposed to be enraged because when I buy a Ford they have Ford-designed headlights?
People support Net Neutrality because of imagined abuses by ISPs, and the only way to fix that, in the minds of too many, is more government.
Imagine, instead, an alternative: These large companies exercising monopolistic strength being broken up into several smaller entities that have to compete.
Capitalism works.It always works. But it only works when there is competition, only when regulations don't stifle innovation, and only when the government isn't injecting cronyism to pick winners and losers.
But, nobody is going to go for that. Not anymore. And especially not here. Slashdot has become a big government haven over the past 10 years.
I've been working from home for almost 10 years now, with only occasional visits to the office.
I love it. I don't have people wandering by my desk and interrupting me, I don't have to deal with the constant noise (open floor plans are evil), no daily commute, I can cook a decent lunch, full control over heating/cooling, etc. Need to get in touch with co-workers? IM, email, conference calls, etc., plenty of ways to contact people if necessary. I get far more done at home than I ever could in the office.
The only reason I stay with my current employer is the work-at-home benefit.
I don't recommend it for people who can't stay on task or those with poorly behaved spouses / children. Your home office is an office, it is a work place and it needs to be treated as such.
Also, I'm not convinced that President Trump came along and said, "Yeah, I hate that commission, let's get rid of it!" He, like 99.9% of you here on Slashdot, likely didn't know it existed. The President does not typically operate at such a low level in the government. That's for your cabinet and department heads to handle.
It's far more likely that the FBI et al. decided that it was a waste of time and resources (as many commissions are), and that they would be better off putting their resources elsewhere. I find it very telling that the WaPo article, as usual, only presents one side of the issue and it is sad that the supposedly intelligent people here on Slashdot continue to fall for this kind of journalism. Yes, it has a token quote from Jess Sessions, but that's about it.
These days I avoid flying if I can. I'd rather drive 10 hours then put up with lines in security, getting molested by the TSA, sitting in a tiny seat in a tin can with a dozen screaming babies and sneezing people...
But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly. I'd like larger seats, sure - but I'd rather see that solved by the airlines instead of the government sticking their nose into the market yet again.
Imagine this:
Enjoy our spacious, comfortable seats on your flight with a full two feet of leg room. With no children under thirteen, you can be assured that your flight will be completed in peace. We still serve complimentary drinks and snacks and offer free pillows, so you'll be refreshed when you land. Why suffer? Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more. Enjoy the experience. (tm)
"Yep, the intro is a bit of a swipe at Trump. But this should get the preppers and paranoids in the group all wound up. Grab your foil! Run for the hills!"
If you want to have constructive conversation, you don't try to get people "wound up" and you don't start it with insulting them, either. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it does come off as the kind of smug crap that I see everywhere these days.
Sadly, the Republican party has become full of big government progressives, just like the Democrats. They're basically the same party - both want to increase the size of government, both want to use it to rule your life, both don't give a shit about you until election day.
I tried YikYak and I still fire it up maybe once a week - to post content from the perspective of a bear, which is kind of fun. I raided some lady's bird feeder last week and told everyone all about it.
But I live out in a semi-rural area. One of YikYak's problems is that it only has content if you're near other people that post content. I, myself, posting maybe once a week, am about 25% of the content in my area. The other 70% is people looking for marijuana or sex, with the remaining 5% of people talking about a crazy bear.
So, it's not a compelling product for a vast section of America. If you live in a city? Cool, great idea, nice product. Out where I am, which is most of America? Not really useful.
Also, it is the easy, brain-dead jobs that are gong to go out of existence. The jobs that support the automation? Robotics engineers, software engineers, mechanics. These are higher end jobs that require education and training.
Sure, there's always going to be menial labor jobs, but they'll be fewer. Look at what is poised to happen in the fast food industry.
Essentially, if you are not reasonably intelligent, you are going to have some serious issues getting employment within 20-30 years. Maybe even sooner than that.
The GOOD thing is that with lower production costs, it will become less costly to live so maybe these things will balance out as they always have in the past. The future economy, though, looks like it will be vastly different than what we have today.
But, then again, to be fair... People said the exact same thing about the Industrial Revolution. Machines are going to take over! No jobs for anyone! But what really happened was jobs for everyone and things were great.
Based on history and evidence there isn't much to fear, but I just feel that things aren't quite the same this time around...
Slashdot Mirror
Why would we want to do this? What makes dna data storage worthwhile?
I'm going to take a wild guess that the calls were recorded for one of (or perhaps all) of the following reasons:
1. Government mandate. We are talking government-run healthcare, after all, and we know how governments love to keep treasure troves of data on its citizens.
2. Liability, especially in a malpractice suit. You can show that the caller didn't "provide enough information to allow for proper advice to be administered, so, your honor, the heart attack isn't our fault."
3. Quality assurance and training purposes.
Thank you, Mr. Pedantic, for your insightful contribution to the discussion.
"It's not a tax or a fine, it's an incentive! Honest!"
It's a tax. Why can't the tax-and-spend types ever be honest about that kind of thing?
When you get down to it, if you want people to upgrade their buildings, then you have to make it worth their money and time. In many cases, a simple education campaign would help. If you can show that a building 60 years old can save, I dunno let's pick a number, 25% in energy costs over the year with a $X investment, then you don't need to force people to do anything. Many will do it on their own.
Unless, of course, you're poor.
You see, poor people are - imagine this - poor. They don't have the money. They can't just dump thousands of dollars into new insulation and other materials. They can't get a loan to do it and, if they could, they would spend more in interest payments than the original project. So, the idea is to jack up prices on people who already can't afford much and certainly can't afford to upgrade things? Yeah...
And then, what about the energy involved in producing the new materials, installing it, stripping out the old stuff, and disposing of it? What about the waste? Every building in the city? I've seen how fast those union workers do their jobs.
I get the intention. We want people to have energy efficient homes. I do too. Over the long term it is better for everyone. But you can't just wave the Magic Wand of Regulation. It's not that simple. Keep jacking up taxes? You can, but remember: the wealthy can live anywhere they choose. They're wealthy. And when taxes get too high they will leave in droves. Illinois already has massive debt problems. They can't afford to sacrifice any more blood dolls.
We can make all the magical pie in the sky plans we want, and there is a place for dreaming up ideals as something to shoot for, but you still have to fund the damn thing.
Maybe it presents some interesting ideas in an easy-to-understand way. You don't have to agree with a point of view in order to recommend reading about it... In fact, approaching beliefs that differ from your own, with an open mind, is the best way to learn about what you believe.
You're never going to learn anything if you only read material you agree with...
It is propaganda. Notice how they mention "regulations and carbon pricing," and you must also be aware that "renewable" energies are often heavily subsidized. You can make anything unprofitable with enough government interference in the free market.
Don't know about California, I'm based out of Ohio. Do software work remotely. Definitely don't pay 40% in income taxes but I wouldn't be surprised if people did in California.
Do you know what I did when I was getting paid crap and was working too many hours? I told my employer that I was going to quit and find work somewhere else. One of two things happened: I got a raise / better conditions, or I found a better job.
In more populous states and in the cities especially, it's very easy to find work. Let the free market do its thing. If a company wants better workers, pay more and treat them better. If your employer is crap, leave. It actually does work.
No wonder Canadian taxes are so high.
Please note that it's the Republican Party more than the political right. The Republicans are a centrist party. The closest thing you will get to a politically "right" party these days are the Libertarian or Federalist parties.
There is truth to this.
You don't have to keep or manage information if you can just make up whatever you want and cite "a source familiar with the situation." I have never before in my life seen news organizations rely so heavily on anonymous sources. CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc., they slap whatever they want up onto their sites, say that "someone told them so," and when the story is later proven false, eh, maybe they issue a correction. Maybe. Mostly they just let it sit out there.
Pretty sad, but news organizations don't seem to care about the truth anymore. They care more about pushing an agenda and, even more so, making money. What gets money right now? Yup, trying to convince the world that Trump is the next Adolf Hitler, we're all going to turn into cannibals by 2040, and every police officer in America just wants to shoot black people for funsies.
It's pretty sad. I get more reliable, fact-driven news about the USA from European sources than domestic sources.
Hate Trump all you want (I'm not a fan either), but he has thrust into the spotlight what many people have known for a long, long time now: The major news media companies are Democrat party lapdogs (save Fox News, which is a Republican party lapdog but that is changing with the Murdochs running the channel). I don't see it getting any better either, because as long as they publish negative stories about Trump (and glowing stories about Obama and Clinton) their audience doesn't care if the stories are true or not. They're stuck in a tribal mindset. "My people GOOD. Those people BAD."
And that's it. That's all most people seem to care about anymore. Us vs. Them. The truth doesn't have a place in Us vs. Them. Us vs. Them makes money, it makes you Feel Good, it makes you crave more.
Instead of Us vs. Them, all of this rampant tribalism, I highly suggest trying Truth vs. Fiction. Be on the side of Truth. If that means your guy is a jerk sometimes, well, then your guy is a jerk. If it means the other guy does something good, well, he does something good. What's wrong with that?
You cannot have a meaningful dialogue about anything if you don't start from a position of truth.
Precisely. It isn't as if they hide everyone else's products. It isn't as if you're forced to use Google. If Google wants to put its own stuff at the top, what's wrong with that? It isn't as if someone is being tricked. "Gosh, gMail, Google' email product, I wonder if that has anything to do with - MY GOD, IT DOES! THOSE BASTARDS TRICKED ME!"
This is the same kind of crap with Microsoft having IE as the default browser.
Am I supposed to be enraged because when I buy a Ford they have Ford-designed headlights?
The Russians have been abusing social media and comments sections of websites for a long time now.
Russia Targets The Blaze
Documents Show How Russia’s Troll Army Hit America
Russian Trolls and the US Election
Not news; if it is to you, you haven't been paying much attention. :P
Well, that's one way to make Perl even more unreadable. :P
People support Net Neutrality because of imagined abuses by ISPs, and the only way to fix that, in the minds of too many, is more government.
Imagine, instead, an alternative: These large companies exercising monopolistic strength being broken up into several smaller entities that have to compete.
Capitalism works.It always works. But it only works when there is competition, only when regulations don't stifle innovation, and only when the government isn't injecting cronyism to pick winners and losers.
But, nobody is going to go for that. Not anymore. And especially not here. Slashdot has become a big government haven over the past 10 years.
I don't recall "school lunch program" being part of the federal government's responsibilities.
If this is something that concerns you, then go to your state. The feds have no business here.
Trump kills open.gov! He hates openness! He's a horrible person! I hate him and so should you!
vs.
To save a bit of money, the content on open.gov is moving to whitehouse.gov.
I know that Trump isn't well liked (especially here), but come on, guys. You're acting like children.
I've been working from home for almost 10 years now, with only occasional visits to the office.
I love it. I don't have people wandering by my desk and interrupting me, I don't have to deal with the constant noise (open floor plans are evil), no daily commute, I can cook a decent lunch, full control over heating/cooling, etc. Need to get in touch with co-workers? IM, email, conference calls, etc., plenty of ways to contact people if necessary. I get far more done at home than I ever could in the office.
The only reason I stay with my current employer is the work-at-home benefit.
I don't recommend it for people who can't stay on task or those with poorly behaved spouses / children. Your home office is an office, it is a work place and it needs to be treated as such.
Also, I'm not convinced that President Trump came along and said, "Yeah, I hate that commission, let's get rid of it!" He, like 99.9% of you here on Slashdot, likely didn't know it existed. The President does not typically operate at such a low level in the government. That's for your cabinet and department heads to handle.
It's far more likely that the FBI et al. decided that it was a waste of time and resources (as many commissions are), and that they would be better off putting their resources elsewhere. I find it very telling that the WaPo article, as usual, only presents one side of the issue and it is sad that the supposedly intelligent people here on Slashdot continue to fall for this kind of journalism. Yes, it has a token quote from Jess Sessions, but that's about it.
Taxes levied against businesses are paid by the customer, too. Doesn't matter where you try to hide the tax, it is the customer that ends up paying.
Kill the complicated tax codes that let people do these things and replace all of it with a simple flat sales tax for your country. No exceptions.
Tada. Everyone pays something. Everyone.
These days I avoid flying if I can. I'd rather drive 10 hours then put up with lines in security, getting molested by the TSA, sitting in a tiny seat in a tin can with a dozen screaming babies and sneezing people...
But, those small seats are why some people can afford to fly. I'd like larger seats, sure - but I'd rather see that solved by the airlines instead of the government sticking their nose into the market yet again.
Imagine this:
Enjoy our spacious, comfortable seats on your flight with a full two feet of leg room. With no children under thirteen, you can be assured that your flight will be completed in peace. We still serve complimentary drinks and snacks and offer free pillows, so you'll be refreshed when you land. Why suffer? Fly NottaCrap Airline for only $100 more. Enjoy the experience. (tm)
They'd have people stampeding to get tickets.
If you want to have constructive conversation, you don't try to get people "wound up" and you don't start it with insulting them, either. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it does come off as the kind of smug crap that I see everywhere these days.
Sadly, the Republican party has become full of big government progressives, just like the Democrats. They're basically the same party - both want to increase the size of government, both want to use it to rule your life, both don't give a shit about you until election day.
I tried YikYak and I still fire it up maybe once a week - to post content from the perspective of a bear, which is kind of fun. I raided some lady's bird feeder last week and told everyone all about it.
But I live out in a semi-rural area. One of YikYak's problems is that it only has content if you're near other people that post content. I, myself, posting maybe once a week, am about 25% of the content in my area. The other 70% is people looking for marijuana or sex, with the remaining 5% of people talking about a crazy bear.
So, it's not a compelling product for a vast section of America. If you live in a city? Cool, great idea, nice product. Out where I am, which is most of America? Not really useful.
Also, it is the easy, brain-dead jobs that are gong to go out of existence. The jobs that support the automation? Robotics engineers, software engineers, mechanics. These are higher end jobs that require education and training.
Sure, there's always going to be menial labor jobs, but they'll be fewer. Look at what is poised to happen in the fast food industry.
Essentially, if you are not reasonably intelligent, you are going to have some serious issues getting employment within 20-30 years. Maybe even sooner than that.
The GOOD thing is that with lower production costs, it will become less costly to live so maybe these things will balance out as they always have in the past. The future economy, though, looks like it will be vastly different than what we have today.
But, then again, to be fair... People said the exact same thing about the Industrial Revolution. Machines are going to take over! No jobs for anyone! But what really happened was jobs for everyone and things were great.
Based on history and evidence there isn't much to fear, but I just feel that things aren't quite the same this time around...