But you don't speak about the abyss of drug addiction, the income-sapping expense, the parents of kids that forget parenting while doing drugs, the accidents on the freeway, the madness of things like meth addiction and its incredible debilitating affects on the body.
Or how the drug cartels live in lawlessness just below the border in muderous droves.
Are you arguing for or against legalization?
Because it seems pretty clear to me that all of the things you describe are not being stopped under the current system.
(medicaid patients are typically poor and many doctors will not even see them because of the problems they bring with them).
It isn't the patients that bring the problems, it is medicaid that is the problem. You've got a false dichotomy of either treating patients on medicaid and then billing medicaid or not treating them at all. There is a third way - ignore the fact that they are on medicaid altogether and bill them what they can afford. I'm not saying that in your current situation you could do that, I'm just saying that the system is currently set up to make it really hard for any doctor to do it both because of the legal perils and because of the mindset that the only option for poor people is to go with medicaid and thus medicaid accepting doctors.
cash-only patients = boutique medicine. Many are doing it. I have some ethical issues because again it will essentially exclude poorer patients. That's not why I went into medicine.
It seems counterintuitive that you would complain about the cost out of your pocket of providing good treatment and simultaneously have a problem with a system where people are enabled to pay for those costs instead.
Besides, cash-only doesn't prevent a doctor from working with the poor - nothing stops a doctor from donating time and services to those who can't afford it and making it up on the paying patients. Well nothing except the current system that funnels the poor into, and is currently chasing doctors away from, medicare/medicaid because treatment is generally a net loss for the doctor.
Look into accepting cash-only patients. I carry catastrophic insurance with a $5K deductible, thus all of my regular medical expenses are cash-only and so I am quite willing to shop on, and pay for, better quality service - including by the minute of actual "face time" rather than by the visit and better privacy policies (I'm still looking for a GP who will let me be the sole holder of my "file" to carry with me to any appointment).
Why do you think it does not work? It's the clue that led to the dead man and to his nephew. It may now lead to the actual planners.
Your assumption is that it is the only clue that will lead anywhere.
Furthermore, the ToI article is very focused on pointing out that, "the Pakistan-based terrorists exploited the weaknesses in the issuance of SIM cards" which seems (to me at least) like editorializing for ratcheting up the restrictions even further. Which is a topic that needs disputing and slasdot is good place to find people who can dispute it on technical grounds if not libertarian grounds.
I wouldn't be too concerned with your business-confidential data leaking into the private sector via some unscrupulous NSA employee (who have a higher bar to employment I would hope, than say a TSA employee).
"Rogue" agents are not the problem. Sanctioned industrial espionage is the problem.
In theory they only do it against foreign corporations, but as multinationals become the norm, that line is becoming increasingly less meaningful. The ultimate result of such policies is likely to be spying against the competitors of the currently favored multinationals.
Actually, I don't think I've heard of Gates screwing employees out of stock.
Not sure how much of a personal involvement Gates had with the Microsoft permatemp fiasco but at the very least you can say that HR tried their darndest to keep deserving people from getting stock.
How about changing the DMCA so that any copyright holder who uses DRM agrees to only a 17 year copyright term on the DRM encumbered work. If they want the longer (I.E. unreasonable) length term then they have to forego DRM.
The original term of copyright in the USA was 14 years plus another optional 14 if the author was (a) alive and (b) made the effort to renew. And there was no DRM. So, why should DRM users get any copyright at all? I say make it like trade-secret vs patents - if you want to keep it locked up, then you don't get copyright protection. Just like if you keep the details of your invention a secret, you don't get patent protection on it.
And everyone else I know can, too. It's very ubiquitous.
Isn't youtube frequently blocked by mainland china? What about the ultra-conservative countries in the middle-east? And Myanmar?
If we are going to start leading by example rather than "do what I say, not what I do" then we have a vested interest in getting information about us out to the rest of world, especially the worst parts of the rest of the world.
What about someone who is carrying a weapon without their knowledge? That won't show up on the scans.
No problem. All they have to do is ask each passenger if they packed their own bags and if they have been out of their possession at any time. If they lie, WeCU will detect it!
Plus, I don't think the president is able to pardon someone until after they have been convicted.
You won't get a job in the fortune 500, but...
on
IT Job Without a Degree?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The fortune 500 typically have HR departments that roboticly follow a check-list and a college degree is almost always on that checklist. You won't even get to the point where an actual technical manager will see your resume without one.
But, smaller shops without an HR department to institutionalize stupidity may let you in to interview and if you are a hot-shot than no one gives a damn about a degree.
If you are a hot-shot, you can also work contract. Contractors often bypass the HR department completely, even at fortune500 companies. No one hires a contractor for their college degree. They do hire contractors for their experience and knowledge.
So, if don't have experience your only hope is a college degree. But if you do have experience and are good at it, then the world is your oyster.
He's also a hypocritical little shit; we never did see him press charges against the SFWA for filing illegal DMCA notices, now did we? Funny how he didn't get all up in their grill, but he's happy to incite riots among his BoingBoing readers when it doesn't involve him?
It is because they were not "illegal DMCA notices" they were simple false. The DMCA only requires that the filer "believe" that the DMCA notice is justified, and showing that the SFWA's lawyers did not "believe" their DMCA notices were legit is essentially impossible. That's why no one, absolutely no one, has been taken to court for filing false DMCA notices. The law is firmly stacked in the favor of those issuing the notices, regardless of whether the filings are valid or not.
Re:They blacklist sites without checking the reaso
on
Google's Gatekeepers
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor.
Isn't that the standard definition of repression? Mistreat one group for the benefit, sometimes completely intangible benefit, of another?
They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage,
Heaven forbid that they make it less profitable to abuse the environment! Don't they know that protests only belong within designated free speech zones?
Rockbox doesn't support the latest ipods. I thought I read that the iphone and the 6th gen ipods where very similar underneath the hood (and very different from previous generation ipods). Can someone who knows more say if this development will help rockbox port to the 6th gen ipod?
now you're throwing the Patriot Act into it? You're a paranoid dude aren't you?
Jeesus Christ, where the fuck do you get this stuff from? Where in all of my responses to you have I mentioned the PATRIOT act? I do notice that you have provided ZERO rebuttal, not even a lightweight handwaving rebuttal, to my point that your criteria for simply being net more effective than abusive is absolute bullshit.
Meanwhile you still have not answered this question, which nows seems to be part of a much larger pattern with you: Why are you deliberately replacing the text where I wrote exactly what happened to a grandmother - LOST HER HOUSE - with an ellipses?
THAT's the statement I'm looking for a link to. WTF did a grandmother EVER lose her house because her grandkid SMOKED a couple of joints? NOT SOLD a couple (big difference!)
I've already linked it for you, but if you want more details here is another link. In the particulars of this case the grandson was accused of selling but was not convicted as in the eyes of the law he never sold any drugs.
That web page, like the previous link I provided, is full of similar situations - like the case where simply having a lot of cash on him while on a flight to las vegas was considered prima facie evidence of drug trafficking and thus enough for a man who have $9000 confiscated but he wasn't even charged, or the man from whom the DEA and the Park Service conspired to steal his land by false testimony in a warrant because he refused to sell it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, I'm a huge big quivering plate of lime jello. You won! Enjoy!
Dude, I won as soon as you made the completely irrelevant post that said, "Data is plentiful. Structured data is not. Learn the difference."
It just took you this long to realize it.
But you don't speak about the abyss of drug addiction, the income-sapping expense, the parents of kids that forget parenting while doing drugs, the accidents on the freeway, the madness of things like meth addiction and its incredible debilitating affects on the body.
Or how the drug cartels live in lawlessness just below the border in muderous droves.
Are you arguing for or against legalization?
Because it seems pretty clear to me that all of the things you describe are not being stopped under the current system.
Nah, I just got bored of arguing with you.
Lol, the you kicked my ass but I'm still better than you ego defense.
What quivering little piece of jello you must be.
(medicaid patients are typically poor and many doctors will not even see them because of the problems they bring with them).
It isn't the patients that bring the problems, it is medicaid that is the problem. You've got a false dichotomy of either treating patients on medicaid and then billing medicaid or not treating them at all. There is a third way - ignore the fact that they are on medicaid altogether and bill them what they can afford. I'm not saying that in your current situation you could do that, I'm just saying that the system is currently set up to make it really hard for any doctor to do it both because of the legal perils and because of the mindset that the only option for poor people is to go with medicaid and thus medicaid accepting doctors.
That's what I thought. All self-sanctimonious bullshit until slapped in the face with reality for which you have no response.
cash-only patients = boutique medicine. Many are doing it. I have some ethical issues because again it will essentially exclude poorer patients. That's not why I went into medicine.
It seems counterintuitive that you would complain about the cost out of your pocket of providing good treatment and simultaneously have a problem with a system where people are enabled to pay for those costs instead.
Besides, cash-only doesn't prevent a doctor from working with the poor - nothing stops a doctor from donating time and services to those who can't afford it and making it up on the paying patients. Well nothing except the current system that funnels the poor into, and is currently chasing doctors away from, medicare/medicaid because treatment is generally a net loss for the doctor.
Look into accepting cash-only patients. I carry catastrophic insurance with a $5K deductible, thus all of my regular medical expenses are cash-only and so I am quite willing to shop on, and pay for, better quality service - including by the minute of actual "face time" rather than by the visit and better privacy policies (I'm still looking for a GP who will let me be the sole holder of my "file" to carry with me to any appointment).
Why do you think it does not work? It's the clue that led to the dead man and to his nephew. It may now lead to the actual planners.
Your assumption is that it is the only clue that will lead anywhere.
Furthermore, the ToI article is very focused on pointing out that, "the Pakistan-based terrorists exploited the weaknesses in the issuance of SIM cards" which seems (to me at least) like editorializing for ratcheting up the restrictions even further. Which is a topic that needs disputing and slasdot is good place to find people who can dispute it on technical grounds if not libertarian grounds.
I wouldn't be too concerned with your business-confidential data leaking into the private sector via some unscrupulous NSA employee (who have a higher bar to employment I would hope, than say a TSA employee).
"Rogue" agents are not the problem. Sanctioned industrial espionage is the problem.
In theory they only do it against foreign corporations, but as multinationals become the norm, that line is becoming increasingly less meaningful. The ultimate result of such policies is likely to be spying against the competitors of the currently favored multinationals.
Here's one article about how Echelon was used for industrial espionage - there are plenty more about the NSA and other agencies that are not Echelon-specific either.
Actually, I don't think I've heard of Gates screwing employees out of stock.
Not sure how much of a personal involvement Gates had with the Microsoft permatemp fiasco but at the very least you can say that HR tried their darndest to keep deserving people from getting stock.
How about changing the DMCA so that any copyright holder who uses DRM agrees to only a 17 year copyright term on the DRM encumbered work. If they want the longer (I.E. unreasonable) length term then they have to forego DRM.
The original term of copyright in the USA was 14 years plus another optional 14 if the author was (a) alive and (b) made the effort to renew. And there was no DRM.
So, why should DRM users get any copyright at all? I say make it like trade-secret vs patents - if you want to keep it locked up, then you don't get copyright protection. Just like if you keep the details of your invention a secret, you don't get patent protection on it.
And everyone else I know can, too. It's very ubiquitous.
Isn't youtube frequently blocked by mainland china?
What about the ultra-conservative countries in the middle-east?
And Myanmar?
If we are going to start leading by example rather than "do what I say, not what I do" then we have a vested interest in getting information about us out to the rest of world, especially the worst parts of the rest of the world.
Personally, I'm far more interested in sticking with Terminator: TSCC
TSCC is the new BSG. They even have Bear McCreary doing the score.
But what if they are late arriving in paradise and someone else gets the virgins?
Then they will just have to go to the Bahamas!
What about someone who is carrying a weapon without their knowledge? That won't show up on the scans.
No problem. All they have to do is ask each passenger if they packed their own bags and if they have been out of their possession at any time. If they lie, WeCU will detect it!
Plus, I don't think the president is able to pardon someone until after they have been convicted.
The fortune 500 typically have HR departments that roboticly follow a check-list and a college degree is almost always on that checklist. You won't even get to the point where an actual technical manager will see your resume without one.
But, smaller shops without an HR department to institutionalize stupidity may let you in to interview and if you are a hot-shot than no one gives a damn about a degree.
If you are a hot-shot, you can also work contract. Contractors often bypass the HR department completely, even at fortune500 companies. No one hires a contractor for their college degree. They do hire contractors for their experience and knowledge.
So, if don't have experience your only hope is a college degree. But if you do have experience and are good at it, then the world is your oyster.
He's also a hypocritical little shit; we never did see him press charges against the SFWA for filing illegal DMCA notices, now did we? Funny how he didn't get all up in their grill, but he's happy to incite riots among his BoingBoing readers when it doesn't involve him?
It is because they were not "illegal DMCA notices" they were simple false. The DMCA only requires that the filer "believe" that the DMCA notice is justified, and showing that the SFWA's lawyers did not "believe" their DMCA notices were legit is essentially impossible. That's why no one, absolutely no one, has been taken to court for filing false DMCA notices. The law is firmly stacked in the favor of those issuing the notices, regardless of whether the filings are valid or not.
So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor.
Isn't that the standard definition of repression? Mistreat one group for the benefit, sometimes completely intangible benefit, of another?
You'd think it would cannibalize the competition's product lines, too. And that's usually a desireable thing.
Not if you and your competition are an effective oligopoly.
They've put their little boats in front of major ships in international waters, causing trade disruption. Their little protests cause a lot of economic damage,
Heaven forbid that they make it less profitable to abuse the environment!
Don't they know that protests only belong within designated free speech zones?
Rockbox doesn't support the latest ipods. I thought I read that the iphone and the 6th gen ipods where very similar underneath the hood (and very different from previous generation ipods). Can someone who knows more say if this development will help rockbox port to the 6th gen ipod?
Rockstar says that all versions of the game will feature SecuROM, including digital versions online
All versions except the pirated versions that is.
There is no right time or place to add an easter egg.
There is only the question of whether you have the cojones to do it.
now you're throwing the Patriot Act into it? You're a paranoid dude aren't you?
Jeesus Christ, where the fuck do you get this stuff from? Where in all of my responses to you have I mentioned the PATRIOT act? I do notice that you have provided ZERO rebuttal, not even a lightweight handwaving rebuttal, to my point that your criteria for simply being net more effective than abusive is absolute bullshit.
Meanwhile you still have not answered this question, which nows seems to be part of a much larger pattern with you:
Why are you deliberately replacing the text where I wrote exactly what happened to a grandmother - LOST HER HOUSE - with an ellipses?
THAT's the statement I'm looking for a link to. WTF did a grandmother EVER lose her house because her grandkid SMOKED a couple of joints? NOT SOLD a couple (big difference!)
I've already linked it for you, but if you want more details here is another link. In the particulars of this case the grandson was accused of selling but was not convicted as in the eyes of the law he never sold any drugs.
That web page, like the previous link I provided, is full of similar situations - like the case where simply having a lot of cash on him while on a flight to las vegas was considered prima facie evidence of drug trafficking and thus enough for a man who have $9000 confiscated but he wasn't even charged, or the man from whom the DEA and the Park Service conspired to steal his land by false testimony in a warrant because he refused to sell it.