I use an extension called Tag Toolbar to allow unlimited tags, and to edit the default tags--the default ones that Thunderbird ships with ($tag1, $tag2,... or something similar) are special tags that are client-defined and as far as I can tell, useless. They're also the only ones most mail clients choose to support. Why would you want to store something on the server that has a different meaning on every client? Anyway, other than the tag toolbar, no I didn't have to do anything special.
I'm using other clients, which don't support IMAP tags and that's a bummer because Dovecot supports tag search directly on the server, so virtual folders would be beautiful on the iPhone for instance... oh well. It works nice on Thunderbird, and as far as I can tell that's the only one right now.
Oh, I'm also using Sieve to filter my mail, and it has very nice IMAP tag support, you can set them, read them, whatever.
Seconding this. I've been using Dovecot with Maildir on EXT3 for the last few years--my mailbox is about 25k messages, which I keep all in a single folder and use IMAP tags to organize into different virtual folders, much like Gmail's system but without the privacy concerns.
Dovecot's supplementary indexes makes everything extremely fast (tags, dates, etc), and anything it doesn't catch Thunderbird does, I can search my entire mailbox for a single word in less than a second. I lose my Thunderbird indexes whenever I move to a new computer, but that's just a matter of leaving the client up for a few hours.
We're required to insure our vehicles to get a loan, insure others against damage we may cause simply to drive at all, and you think the barrier should be lower to raise a child?
I don't give empathy to faceless people posting under a pseudonym on the internet. Hey, why don't you give me some empathy? I was sexually abused by ever male figure I've ever had in my life, and psychologically by every woman. I had a wife, and three kids, they were tortured to death in front of me while I watched helpless.
Is any of that true? Maybe I'm the original poster, just stirring shit up for his own enjoyment. Who knows! Oh wait, I know who, my actual friends and family (who are all dead:( ). I'm more than willing to debate justice or morals or any number of abstract subjects on the internet, but I cannot empathize with some random account on some random forum.
Even if I could, what does my sensitivity mean? Absolutely nothing. Maybe if my karma takes a big enough hit I'll farm the other side of the conversation and play sympathetic. Should he be touched by my "awww (and then something mind-numbingly stupid that gets modded up as if I thought of something new)" that I only put there to get the +5? That's just ridiculous. Everybody's a sociopath on the internet, and everyone who isn't is dirt under their wheels.
No, I'm not mandating that at all. Poor people can get Medicaid for their children quite easily, I should know, I grew up poor and even when my parents didn't have insurance, I always did.
As for arguing reality, the reality is that we are in a capitalist(ish) society and raising children with insufficient resources is irresponsible. I don't like the current reality, but that's the thing about reality, it doesn't change just because you don't like it. You're right on one point though. It's not like driving a car, because if your car breaks down it's absolutely nothing like your child having to deal with an un/under-treated disease that will affect them for the rest of their life just because you had to drop a load or fill some emptyness in your life but it wasn't worth going out and getting an education for, and you have too many "morals" to abort it or give it to people who have a chance at giving it a good life, which makes you a scumbag (not you personally, but the people who do that).
Ahaha woah woah woah... Did you seriously just try to make an actual claim that you should be allowed to use the line I sarcastically said he was using?
Nobody should be able to make that claim to a hospital, no matter how bitter they are.
No, I was simply offended at using a dead child as an excuse--as has been pretty well demonstrated by this thread, it's a short-circuit for pretty much anyone's sense of logic or even normal moral code. I have no doubt a lot of the people replying here would normally be offended at someone trying to stiff a hospital.
The thing is, I don't buy that it's a catch-22. Parents should be required, by law, to ensure that their children have health insurance, in which case he's at maximum got to deal with a big bill, but not a life-changing bill. I think that they shouldn't even have to worry about that because it should be covered by the government, but that's a whole other argument and in the meantime, if you want to have children you should be responsible for them, which in this country at this time means you need insurance. With insurance, most policies these days are designed to make a large hospital bill suck, but not break you. For instance, I might have to pay up to $2,500 in any given year once I go over $2,500 in bills--and I've got a pretty crappy insurance policy.
Failing that, it's practically impossible to not be able to get Medicaid or some other government assistance to get your children covered. Even Republicans can be almost decent when dealing with children. Sometimes.
I'm not fine with relaxing parent's requirements, and I'm not fine with letting people get away with not paying. There are costs to bringing a child into the world, and if you are a poor planner, abortion is legal. If you are a poor planner with an irrational attachment to clumps of cells, you should refrain from having sex until you're financially stable. If you are a poor planner with said attachment, but your morals don't extend to practicing self-control, I have a number of adopted friends who have led great lives.
What I'm saying is, you practically have to try to run into the type of situation where this is a potentially ruining catch-22. Will some be bankrupted? Yes, no doubt. But that's the whole point of bankruptcy, it lets you get out of these types of situations without letting it ruin your whole life.
Finally, I am absolutely fine with the current approach of de-prioritizing medical bills, and absolutely happy to pay the extra so that people have an additional step before bankruptcy. What I am not fine with is somebody who most likely could have paid the bill deciding not to pay it, and then trotting out the dead baby to preemptively vilify anyone who disagrees.
You know what I meant, but I'll clarify to soothe your hemorrhoids (hey look, there is such a thing as free heathcare!): I would rather an appropriate level of tax (decided by people much wiser than me) be charged to each citizen, to support (needful, again, decided by people smarter than me) heathcare to the best of our abilities that is given without discrimination to anyone within our borders.
Ethics and morals? You mean like the ethics of coldly using the excuse of grief to stiff the people who tried to save your baby's life?
No, that is no kind of ethics I've ever heard of.
And for the record, I'm all for 100% covered healthcare for every person in our borders, citizen or not. But until that time comes when we decide as a country to do it, if you don't play by the rules we all have to follow, what does that say about you? Are you too good for rules? What, because your candidate didn't get elected you get to do whatever you want?
Finally, I'll send a "fuck you" your way too. How dare you wish harm on me for calling someone out who is trying to make up his own exceptions as he goes? I never said I was happy for what happened to him, (or his child, let's not forget who really lost something) but I do hope that he has to deal with the consequences of the decision he made, and is continuing to make. He could go find out what's up with his debt right now but he'd rather bury his head in the sand, with the potent excuse of a dead baby, whose corpse he will apparently pull out and shake in the face of whoever dares to ask for money for the constantly ripped off hospitals, ripped off by the assholes in congress who kick and scream because they don't want to pay for other people, ripped off by insurance companies who don't want to pay anyone, ripped off by this guy who sees a chance to not pay and takes it, and ripped off by people who've been ripped off by life and can't pay. And this is the guy you're defending? Fuck you.
Oh calm down, I'm not suggesting someone should have their Visa ready if their baby isn't breathing, but the care had been given, and this person was offended that the hospital had the almighty gall to charge him for an ambulance, the EMTs, the emergency operators, the doctors on call, etc., etc., that they provided, I am absolutely certain, without even thinking about cost at the time.
What I am suggesting is that this guy felt no gratitude whatsoever for their efforts, and apparently thinks that they should only be paid for results, damn it *pounds fist on table*.
Should there maybe be a grief clause? Eh, I don't know, it seems weird to me. But until there is one, if you get a bill you pay it. You don't just arbitrarily decide "I'm too sad to pay this one."
Slashdot Mirror
I use an extension called Tag Toolbar to allow unlimited tags, and to edit the default tags--the default ones that Thunderbird ships with ($tag1, $tag2, ... or something similar) are special tags that are client-defined and as far as I can tell, useless. They're also the only ones most mail clients choose to support. Why would you want to store something on the server that has a different meaning on every client? Anyway, other than the tag toolbar, no I didn't have to do anything special.
I'm using other clients, which don't support IMAP tags and that's a bummer because Dovecot supports tag search directly on the server, so virtual folders would be beautiful on the iPhone for instance... oh well. It works nice on Thunderbird, and as far as I can tell that's the only one right now.
Oh, I'm also using Sieve to filter my mail, and it has very nice IMAP tag support, you can set them, read them, whatever.
The first amendment prohibits the government from suppressing speech, not Rackspace.
State your assumptions. If you fail at everything else but do that, your comments will be better than 90% of the comments out there.
Seconding this. I've been using Dovecot with Maildir on EXT3 for the last few years--my mailbox is about 25k messages, which I keep all in a single folder and use IMAP tags to organize into different virtual folders, much like Gmail's system but without the privacy concerns.
Dovecot's supplementary indexes makes everything extremely fast (tags, dates, etc), and anything it doesn't catch Thunderbird does, I can search my entire mailbox for a single word in less than a second. I lose my Thunderbird indexes whenever I move to a new computer, but that's just a matter of leaving the client up for a few hours.
You're an encoder.
The first is an encoder/decoder, the second (H.264, note the dot) is a format.
Too soon?
Hard.
ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
(morbo is very, very displeased by this lameness filter)
Not having health insurance for your children affects your children. You are dense I'm done talking to you.
We're required to insure our vehicles to get a loan, insure others against damage we may cause simply to drive at all, and you think the barrier should be lower to raise a child?
im gay
You ain't kiddin. *pays geico bill*
I don't give empathy to faceless people posting under a pseudonym on the internet. Hey, why don't you give me some empathy? I was sexually abused by ever male figure I've ever had in my life, and psychologically by every woman. I had a wife, and three kids, they were tortured to death in front of me while I watched helpless.
Is any of that true? Maybe I'm the original poster, just stirring shit up for his own enjoyment. Who knows! Oh wait, I know who, my actual friends and family (who are all dead :( ). I'm more than willing to debate justice or morals or any number of abstract subjects on the internet, but I cannot empathize with some random account on some random forum.
Even if I could, what does my sensitivity mean? Absolutely nothing. Maybe if my karma takes a big enough hit I'll farm the other side of the conversation and play sympathetic. Should he be touched by my "awww (and then something mind-numbingly stupid that gets modded up as if I thought of something new)" that I only put there to get the +5? That's just ridiculous. Everybody's a sociopath on the internet, and everyone who isn't is dirt under their wheels.
No, I'm not mandating that at all. Poor people can get Medicaid for their children quite easily, I should know, I grew up poor and even when my parents didn't have insurance, I always did.
As for arguing reality, the reality is that we are in a capitalist(ish) society and raising children with insufficient resources is irresponsible. I don't like the current reality, but that's the thing about reality, it doesn't change just because you don't like it. You're right on one point though. It's not like driving a car, because if your car breaks down it's absolutely nothing like your child having to deal with an un/under-treated disease that will affect them for the rest of their life just because you had to drop a load or fill some emptyness in your life but it wasn't worth going out and getting an education for, and you have too many "morals" to abort it or give it to people who have a chance at giving it a good life, which makes you a scumbag (not you personally, but the people who do that).
And yet I'm the one modded troll...
What exactly makes me a monster? Being upset at someone who uses years-old grief to continue to rip off a hospital?
Ahaha woah woah woah... Did you seriously just try to make an actual claim that you should be allowed to use the line I sarcastically said he was using?
Nobody should be able to make that claim to a hospital, no matter how bitter they are.
Ugh. As I explained in another post where someone blurted out this same thing (is this argument in a brochure or something?), you know what I mean.
No, I was simply offended at using a dead child as an excuse--as has been pretty well demonstrated by this thread, it's a short-circuit for pretty much anyone's sense of logic or even normal moral code. I have no doubt a lot of the people replying here would normally be offended at someone trying to stiff a hospital.
The thing is, I don't buy that it's a catch-22. Parents should be required, by law, to ensure that their children have health insurance, in which case he's at maximum got to deal with a big bill, but not a life-changing bill. I think that they shouldn't even have to worry about that because it should be covered by the government, but that's a whole other argument and in the meantime, if you want to have children you should be responsible for them, which in this country at this time means you need insurance. With insurance, most policies these days are designed to make a large hospital bill suck, but not break you. For instance, I might have to pay up to $2,500 in any given year once I go over $2,500 in bills--and I've got a pretty crappy insurance policy.
Failing that, it's practically impossible to not be able to get Medicaid or some other government assistance to get your children covered. Even Republicans can be almost decent when dealing with children. Sometimes.
I'm not fine with relaxing parent's requirements, and I'm not fine with letting people get away with not paying. There are costs to bringing a child into the world, and if you are a poor planner, abortion is legal. If you are a poor planner with an irrational attachment to clumps of cells, you should refrain from having sex until you're financially stable. If you are a poor planner with said attachment, but your morals don't extend to practicing self-control, I have a number of adopted friends who have led great lives.
What I'm saying is, you practically have to try to run into the type of situation where this is a potentially ruining catch-22. Will some be bankrupted? Yes, no doubt. But that's the whole point of bankruptcy, it lets you get out of these types of situations without letting it ruin your whole life.
Finally, I am absolutely fine with the current approach of de-prioritizing medical bills, and absolutely happy to pay the extra so that people have an additional step before bankruptcy. What I am not fine with is somebody who most likely could have paid the bill deciding not to pay it, and then trotting out the dead baby to preemptively vilify anyone who disagrees.
You're an easily manipulated idiot.
You know what I meant, but I'll clarify to soothe your hemorrhoids (hey look, there is such a thing as free heathcare!): I would rather an appropriate level of tax (decided by people much wiser than me) be charged to each citizen, to support (needful, again, decided by people smarter than me) heathcare to the best of our abilities that is given without discrimination to anyone within our borders.
zing!
Ethics and morals? You mean like the ethics of coldly using the excuse of grief to stiff the people who tried to save your baby's life?
No, that is no kind of ethics I've ever heard of.
And for the record, I'm all for 100% covered healthcare for every person in our borders, citizen or not. But until that time comes when we decide as a country to do it, if you don't play by the rules we all have to follow, what does that say about you? Are you too good for rules? What, because your candidate didn't get elected you get to do whatever you want?
Finally, I'll send a "fuck you" your way too. How dare you wish harm on me for calling someone out who is trying to make up his own exceptions as he goes? I never said I was happy for what happened to him, (or his child, let's not forget who really lost something) but I do hope that he has to deal with the consequences of the decision he made, and is continuing to make. He could go find out what's up with his debt right now but he'd rather bury his head in the sand, with the potent excuse of a dead baby, whose corpse he will apparently pull out and shake in the face of whoever dares to ask for money for the constantly ripped off hospitals, ripped off by the assholes in congress who kick and scream because they don't want to pay for other people, ripped off by insurance companies who don't want to pay anyone, ripped off by this guy who sees a chance to not pay and takes it, and ripped off by people who've been ripped off by life and can't pay. And this is the guy you're defending? Fuck you.
Oh calm down, I'm not suggesting someone should have their Visa ready if their baby isn't breathing, but the care had been given, and this person was offended that the hospital had the almighty gall to charge him for an ambulance, the EMTs, the emergency operators, the doctors on call, etc., etc., that they provided, I am absolutely certain, without even thinking about cost at the time.
What I am suggesting is that this guy felt no gratitude whatsoever for their efforts, and apparently thinks that they should only be paid for results, damn it *pounds fist on table*.
Should there maybe be a grief clause? Eh, I don't know, it seems weird to me. But until there is one, if you get a bill you pay it. You don't just arbitrarily decide "I'm too sad to pay this one."