He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.
What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.
can somebody explain to me why downloading a video in 1 gigantic burst is better than streaming it at a more steady rate?
It isn't extra overhead in the protocol, its extra-overhead in the network equipment. Hardware that doesn't care so much about maintaining smoothly consistent transfer rates is a lot cheaper than hardware which does.
It's the basic design philosophy of the internet - stupid network with smart end-points. Implementing a smart network has all kinds of downsides. You can think of it* as being an NP-hard problem to solve if you try to do with a smart network, but NP-complete if you do it with a dumb network and just increase available bandwidth.
* Where "it" is pretty much each and every problem for which someone proposes a smart network as a solution.
I checked quote a few links on that through Google, and all of them say it's about vouchers to purchase insurance. In fact once of the links I checked was Ryan's own website where he himself says quote "a voucher with which to purchase insurance".
Uh, so what's your point? I said that keying off of the word "voucher" to argue about the Ryan plan is stupid because its irrelevant and then you went to all that trouble to prove that it really is irrelevant? Congratulations!!!
The majority of people aren't sick and wouldn't need to use even a fraction of the voucher in any given year,
So bank it for the next year.
while on the other hand a $10,000 dollar voucher would have exactly ZERO VALUE for someone who requires a $40,000 surgery
What, you don't think people get denied treatments today because the cost of the treatment is too high? It doesn't matter if the reason you can't get treated is due to the lack of dollars in hand or due to policies in the system. You still don't get treated. At least with a system like this you can try to make up the difference. Good luck getting any insurance system anywhere in the world to go in for $30K on a $40K treatment that they denied.
You of course do realize that many people with cancer fail to maintain employment due to a variety of reasons which means even the "employed with health insurance" crowd will lose their job and subsequently their health insurance
You of course fail to realize that you are not talking about insurance, but actual treatment. You are so far off on a red herring you've forgotten the original point that regardless of the source of the money, it needs to be spent by the person with the most to lose if it is misspent.
When the hell did a 1 in 2 (Men), 1 in 3 (Women) risk of developing cancer during a person's life become an outlier?
What part of unemployed did you fail to understand?
If this is the best people can do to criticize the idea that the person with the most to lose should have the most to say about how money is spent for their treatment, then its no wonder the US healthcare system is in shambles.
Except a voucher is as worthless as the paper it's printed on for anyone with a preexisting condition
Yeah, I expected you to go down that path since it's the standard criticism to the Ryan voucher plan and nothing to do with what's under consideration here. This isn't about vouchers to purchase health insurance this is about a cash substitute that can only be used to purchase treatment.
That's a terribly off-base distortion of what he said. That unemployed guy is the exception, not the rule, even today with ~20% effective unemployment. Focusing on the outliers rather than the common case is no way to make a rational argument.
There is nothing delusional about wanting to give the person with the most at risk - the patient - the most control over how the money for their care is spent. A system that makes that connection is good for everyone, even the unemployed guy who probably end up with something like a voucher instead of spending out of his empty pockets.
If my identity gets swiped I'll have a new hobby of telling the world to double-check anything purportedly done in my name. Shit happens, brace for it.
What you are demonstrating is the natural human tendency to not see past the end of your own nose. You, like most people, are unimportant, by far your biggest risk is getting caught up in some wholesale data theft and then dealing with the relatively minor personal fallout.
But focusing on the privacy of the average Joe in this way obscures the deeper threat. It is what happens when an average joe becomes important that the real risks to society come into play. Take, for example, an up-and-coming politician challenging the status quo - leaking the fact that he's been treated for gonorrhoea a couple of times might be all that's needed to kill his political career.
Privacy is dying and that toothpaste ain't going back in the tube.
That's just what people who don't care say to make themselves feel better about not caring. The world of information has changed, but that doesn't mean privacy died. It just means that we need to establish new social principles that take the place of the old social principles that have been made obsolete by that change.
Do you believe a Porsche Cayenne has some inherent visual qualities that make it superior to an, I don't know, pick some Hundai SUV.
Bad example.
The Cayenne is terribly fugly - it looks like a combination of all the bad design elements of any SUV and a regular porsche. I doubt anyone thinks it looks good. At least not the way many people think Porsche two-seaters look good (even those fugly whale-tale porsches look better than a Cayenne). Plus, the first couple of generations of the Hyundai Santa Fe were much better looking than the Cayenne, although the current model is just boring with no recognisable inheritance from the prior generations.
A 1960 Cadillac Coupe DeVille is stunningly beautiful today,
Not so much. Iconic, yes, but not beautiful, much less stunningly so.
No, I want something that makes uses of the massive over-capacity of solar-panels I installed on my roof. My intent was to use the excess to power my car rather than sell it back to the electric co at wholesale rates.
Right. I tried NotScript for a day and couldn't stand it, nowhere near as functional as it is on firefox. I run almost exclusively in deny-all mode with only temporary enabling on specific websites for specific cases, so its not like I use all the fancy stuff in noscript either.
I've also tried Ghostery for Chrome (from the same guys who do Ghostery for FireFox) and, due to the sucky webkit api, it is totally random what it blocks. At least it tells you what it blocked and what it let through, but hit reload on a page and you'll get a different set of what's been blocked and what's not.
Chrome is just not functional enough for anyone who gives a damn about personal security online.
Ok here is my question, why on earth does a car have an RSS reader? I thought the idea was to avoid crashes and avoid driver distraction?
Its surely for behind-the-scenes stuff like traffic and weather updates for the GPS, firmware patches, etc. RSS is functional enough for automated "push" distribution.
The LEAF has a SIM card to do its stuff wirelessly. What happens if you take the SIM out? Will it just queue up all the tracking info and upload it as soon as it gets reconnected, or is it a shoot-and-forget thing where the local copy gets binned regardless of if the transmission was successful or not?
I've been looking at the LEAF (and Tesla's line-up, yes I know the prices are vastly different, that's not an issue for me) and the whole "phone home" thing is a deal-breaker. I won't buy a car with OnStar or the equivalent unless I can be 100% sure that it is disabled. I don't need that level of hand-holding and I won't spend my money in support of such a product unless it has a 100% provable "off switch."
The program wasn't the problem, the use of it was.
Baloney. It was precisely because of COINTELPRO coming to light that those kinds of surveillance without just cause were explicitly forbidden to agents of the FBI. It took 9/11 hysteria to bring them back.
The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?
Absent any reasonable suspicion, no they shouldn't. Just having your name become known by the cops in the regular course of events isn't enough reason. Just like they shouldn't be able to "join" a church congregation looking for KKK members or anti-war groups with no history of violence.
Sanctioning that sort of thing is COINTELPRO shit, just not quite so organized.
He also told the grand jurors that sometimes, when he sees somebody driving a Ferrari, he'll check to see if they make enough money to afford it. When I called Mr. Nordlander and others at the I.R.S. to ask whether this was an appropriate way to choose subjects for criminal tax investigations, my questions were met with a stone wall of silence.
Slashdot Mirror
He won't be so supportive when he gets asked for papers because he is a mexican. The issue with SB1070 is racial profiling. That is the issue.
What tool mod'd this down to -1? This is precisely the problem with the law - you can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant just by looking at them, but that's exactly what the law requires.
And if it does, it will chain you that much tighter to the iEcoSystem.
IEco IEco
Your Spy-Boy and My Spy-Boy sitting by the TV
My Spy-Boy says to your Spy-Boy
"I'm gonna send your deets to Stevie"
Talkin' 'bout
Hey now (hey now)
Hey now (hey now)
IEco IEco an nay (whoah-oh)
Jockomo feena ah na nay
Jockomo feena nay
can somebody explain to me why downloading a video in 1 gigantic burst is better than streaming it at a more steady rate?
It isn't extra overhead in the protocol, its extra-overhead in the network equipment. Hardware that doesn't care so much about maintaining smoothly consistent transfer rates is a lot cheaper than hardware which does.
It's the basic design philosophy of the internet - stupid network with smart end-points. Implementing a smart network has all kinds of downsides. You can think of it* as being an NP-hard problem to solve if you try to do with a smart network, but NP-complete if you do it with a dumb network and just increase available bandwidth.
* Where "it" is pretty much each and every problem for which someone proposes a smart network as a solution.
I checked quote a few links on that through Google, and all of them say it's about vouchers to purchase insurance. In fact once of the links I checked was Ryan's own website where he himself says quote "a voucher with which to purchase insurance".
Uh, so what's your point? I said that keying off of the word "voucher" to argue about the Ryan plan is stupid because its irrelevant and then you went to all that trouble to prove that it really is irrelevant? Congratulations!!!
The majority of people aren't sick and wouldn't need to use even a fraction of the voucher in any given year,
So bank it for the next year.
while on the other hand a $10,000 dollar voucher would have exactly ZERO VALUE for someone who requires a $40,000 surgery
What, you don't think people get denied treatments today because the cost of the treatment is too high? It doesn't matter if the reason you can't get treated is due to the lack of dollars in hand or due to policies in the system. You still don't get treated. At least with a system like this you can try to make up the difference. Good luck getting any insurance system anywhere in the world to go in for $30K on a $40K treatment that they denied.
You are on a site who's name is modeled after a unix convention. This isn't ccolonbackslashdot.org
FTFY
You of course do realize that many people with cancer fail to maintain employment due to a variety of reasons which means even the "employed with health insurance" crowd will lose their job and subsequently their health insurance
You of course fail to realize that you are not talking about insurance, but actual treatment. You are so far off on a red herring you've forgotten the original point that regardless of the source of the money, it needs to be spent by the person with the most to lose if it is misspent.
To further illustrate your point about the current disconnect with actual costs, check out this piece from NPR about how drug companies game the copay system to sell massively over-priced drugs which in turn causes large increases in health insurance premiums.
When the hell did a 1 in 2 (Men), 1 in 3 (Women) risk of developing cancer during a person's life become an outlier?
What part of unemployed did you fail to understand?
If this is the best people can do to criticize the idea that the person with the most to lose should have the most to say about how money is spent for their treatment, then its no wonder the US healthcare system is in shambles.
Except a voucher is as worthless as the paper it's printed on for anyone with a preexisting condition
Yeah, I expected you to go down that path since it's the standard criticism to the Ryan voucher plan and nothing to do with what's under consideration here. This isn't about vouchers to purchase health insurance this is about a cash substitute that can only be used to purchase treatment.
That's a terribly off-base distortion of what he said. That unemployed guy is the exception, not the rule, even today with ~20% effective unemployment. Focusing on the outliers rather than the common case is no way to make a rational argument.
There is nothing delusional about wanting to give the person with the most at risk - the patient - the most control over how the money for their care is spent. A system that makes that connection is good for everyone, even the unemployed guy who probably end up with something like a voucher instead of spending out of his empty pockets.
I make a decent amount producing new bugs.
+1 LOL
If my identity gets swiped I'll have a new hobby of telling the world to double-check anything purportedly done in my name. Shit happens, brace for it.
What you are demonstrating is the natural human tendency to not see past the end of your own nose. You, like most people, are unimportant, by far your biggest risk is getting caught up in some wholesale data theft and then dealing with the relatively minor personal fallout.
But focusing on the privacy of the average Joe in this way obscures the deeper threat. It is what happens when an average joe becomes important that the real risks to society come into play. Take, for example, an up-and-coming politician challenging the status quo - leaking the fact that he's been treated for gonorrhoea a couple of times might be all that's needed to kill his political career.
Privacy is dying and that toothpaste ain't going back in the tube.
That's just what people who don't care say to make themselves feel better about not caring. The world of information has changed, but that doesn't mean privacy died. It just means that we need to establish new social principles that take the place of the old social principles that have been made obsolete by that change.
Do you believe a Porsche Cayenne has some inherent visual qualities that make it superior to an, I don't know, pick some Hundai SUV.
Bad example.
The Cayenne is terribly fugly - it looks like a combination of all the bad design elements of any SUV and a regular porsche. I doubt anyone thinks it looks good. At least not the way many people think Porsche two-seaters look good (even those fugly whale-tale porsches look better than a Cayenne). Plus, the first couple of generations of the Hyundai Santa Fe were much better looking than the Cayenne, although the current model is just boring with no recognisable inheritance from the prior generations.
A 1960 Cadillac Coupe DeVille is stunningly beautiful today,
Not so much. Iconic, yes, but not beautiful, much less stunningly so.
If you remove the SIM card from the vehicle, it will not "start," in that the vehicle will not shift from Park unless the SIM card is installed.
Wow. That is some suck. Will it run with a dummy card in place?
I have difficulting believing a car lover ...
What gave you that idea?
I can think of neater things to do with power, like making the entire home wireless.
Uh I don't really give a damn about how its transmitted around my house, I care about how it is consumed.
No, I want something that makes uses of the massive over-capacity of solar-panels I installed on my roof. My intent was to use the excess to power my car rather than sell it back to the electric co at wholesale rates.
Almost, but not really.
Right. I tried NotScript for a day and couldn't stand it, nowhere near as functional as it is on firefox. I run almost exclusively in deny-all mode with only temporary enabling on specific websites for specific cases, so its not like I use all the fancy stuff in noscript either.
I've also tried Ghostery for Chrome (from the same guys who do Ghostery for FireFox) and, due to the sucky webkit api, it is totally random what it blocks. At least it tells you what it blocked and what it let through, but hit reload on a page and you'll get a different set of what's been blocked and what's not.
Chrome is just not functional enough for anyone who gives a damn about personal security online.
Eliminating investigative methods that can be used righteously is not the proper result.
And there we have the fundamental reason for your support. By definition, such "methods" are only ever righteous in an authoritarian state.
Ok here is my question, why on earth does a car have an RSS reader? I thought the idea was to avoid crashes and avoid driver distraction?
Its surely for behind-the-scenes stuff like traffic and weather updates for the GPS, firmware patches, etc. RSS is functional enough for automated "push" distribution.
The LEAF has a SIM card to do its stuff wirelessly. What happens if you take the SIM out? Will it just queue up all the tracking info and upload it as soon as it gets reconnected, or is it a shoot-and-forget thing where the local copy gets binned regardless of if the transmission was successful or not?
I've been looking at the LEAF (and Tesla's line-up, yes I know the prices are vastly different, that's not an issue for me) and the whole "phone home" thing is a deal-breaker. I won't buy a car with OnStar or the equivalent unless I can be 100% sure that it is disabled. I don't need that level of hand-holding and I won't spend my money in support of such a product unless it has a 100% provable "off switch."
What is the Leaf's gasoline MPG? Not the combined MPG, but the MPG if the battery was completely dead and you ran the car on gasoline power?
Zero. You may be thinking of the Chevy Volt.
The Leaf is pure electric, range of 100 miles per charge, or if you drive like I do, more like 50 miles per charge.
The program wasn't the problem, the use of it was.
Baloney. It was precisely because of COINTELPRO coming to light that those kinds of surveillance without just cause were explicitly forbidden to agents of the FBI. It took 9/11 hysteria to bring them back.
The cops shouldn't have the ability to google your name to see if you've been bragging about your crimes?
Absent any reasonable suspicion, no they shouldn't. Just having your name become known by the cops in the regular course of events isn't enough reason. Just like they shouldn't be able to "join" a church congregation looking for KKK members or anti-war groups with no history of violence.
Sanctioning that sort of thing is COINTELPRO shit, just not quite so organized.
Yeah, I'd love to see that sourced too!
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/26nocera.html
He also told the grand jurors that sometimes, when he sees somebody driving a Ferrari, he'll check to see if they make enough money to afford it. When I called Mr. Nordlander and others at the I.R.S. to ask whether this was an appropriate way to choose subjects for criminal tax investigations, my questions were met with a stone wall of silence.
Just google "Single-cell biological lasers" and you get some free sources for the article.
Or just click the link in the summary, it works for me and I ain't on any special network like a uni with a subscription to the journal.