In my experience, TVersity isn't that great. For some reason it keeps "losing" it's connection with my Movies folder and just says there are no titles. Twonky was much better but I didn't think it was worth the license cost. I guess it's time to try PS3Media Center.
For those of us stuck using a Blackberry because of work, it hardly matters. I just looked and I've used less than 10MB this month with a week and a half left in the cycle. The reason? The only app on Blackberry worth having that uses a lot of data is Pandora.
Either their network is getting a lot of use from Android phones, or they don't want to have to grandfather in an iPhone accounts when they switch. I think this is more proof that the Verizon iPhone is coming sooner rather than later. Add in the fact that Verizon is trying to through people off by saying they hope to get the iPhone in their LTE network and it sounds like the early 2011 rumors are true.
Okay, I'm not advocating the complete running of stop signs or traffic lights. I'm saying that rolling stops for stops signs (ie you get to the stop sign, make sure nothing is coming and continue on before your vehicle has come to a complete stop) aren't a big deal.
Just down the road from me there was a 3 way intersection that was cut down to a straight through road. But they left the stops signs up as a way of slowing traffic through that area. That sort of crap shouldn't happen and people definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop in that location.
Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.
I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.
I can see it now, the next revision to this law will add a 5 day waiting period to cells phones so that background checks can be performed. Just like hand guns.
Well are the saying goes "History is written by the victors." That's why it's "the west was won" not "the systematic genocide of the western Native American people". The problem with history is that it is usually written by involved parties. The only way you'd ever get an objective history is if it were written completely from a 3rd perspective that has no interest in the matter at hand.
Unfortunately, nothing like that exists or is possible as every history, even those written by 3rd party external observers are subject to the bias of that person's/group's moral beliefs.
The problem with that is that Apple is all about selling an experience, not necessarily just a product. What happens to their ability to market something as "it just works" if they let people put any crap on their device that crashes things all the time? Does Flash end up with the bad wrap that way? No the average user isn't smart enough to determine why their device has problems, they just know it doesn't work right. And they are then turned off to buying the next device next year.
I know a lot of people hate the App approval process and think that they should be allowed to run anything on their device. But part of the reason for that system is keep crap off the device that will interfere with the basic functionality of the device.
If you don't like it you have an option, don't buy it. If Apple doesn't sell devices, maybe they will have to rethink their policies. I don't see that happening though.
That's actually what I thought the 3D in movies like Monsters vs Aliens was like. I always could see those Magic Eye things, but I'm just not impressed by the 3D movies that have come out. I didn't even think Avatar was that great.
I really hope the industry keeps making the 2D versions along with the 3D versions. Otherwise I may have to break down and read a book or go outside.
Actually the elasticity of these things change with the among of force applied. When you try to punch these things hard (just like a bullet does) they seem to rigid. But when you try to handle them with less force, like try to slowly pull or push them (just like when you try to wear them), they seem to be really elastic.
So your question should be rephrased as how elastic it is, when a bullet strikes it? Is is strong enough to distribute the force of the bullet through out your torso and not cause a serious dent?
Holy crap! I've been in meetings with 20 people that take forever and are drawn out simply because too many people need to hear their own voice. I don't blame this guy for zoning out. 51 isn't a council, that's a legislature.
I don't completely understood why someone would rather have a private, for-profit business standing between them and their doctor instead of just being able to go to their doctor and not having to worry about the billing side of things.
Well I partially get it. For some reason *cough*Bush/Chaney*cough* people are highly distrustful of the government. Okay you have a point there. But why the hell would you trust an insurance company? Their goal is to make as much money as possible. The only way they can do that is by charging you more, denying your claims and reimbursing doctors less. None of those are good things for you.
5. I guess I'd like to see more numbers on the actual $$$ that emergency rooms spend on the uninsured. I'm sure it's high, but if the argument is that they go because it's free then why don't we hear about all the Americans running to Canada for the free healthcare? Again, I think you have some valid concerns about illegal immigrants, perhaps a solution would be a co-op program between hospitals and INS. Seems like illegals would avoid hospitals if they thought they might be deported.
4. Okay see, that is the type of system I don't mind. Although, I am curious as to who is holding your $2000 for you. Because whoever is holding it is making a ton of money on the interest. My other concern with this type of system is that it encourages the "wait and see" mentality. People hold off on trips to the doctor because they want to save money. Maybe they get better on their own, but maybe they get worse. And then they find out they now need an expensive procedure that could have been solved cheaper and easier if they'd have caught it early. But I can see the appeal to this type of system.
2. I'm sure that a leg does net you more than a finger these days. But this goes back to the topic of the $30 aspirin, if you want this all nicely planned out with a $ amount for each item/procedure then someone has to be in charge of picking the pricing. It's a matter of who you want to do the pricing. The insurance company? the doctors? The patients? The government? The first 3 entities have a personal stake in the matter. The government does in the case of Medicare/Medicade and Veteran Health programs. So really unless we have some completely unbiased organization come in and set those levels, you will never get the 4 groups to agree.
Plus once you set those levels, you've eliminated the ability of the capitalist principles or supply and demand to dictate pricing. At that point, why not just implement a single payer system?
1. Well as I said, why would an insurance company continue to operate in a state that required they cover a long list of conditions when they can move to a state that doesn't? Perhaps after they moved they would then be forced to compete with each other on price, but the more likely scenario would be informal price setting. It would be like the gas stations in your town. They all charge the same price (usually within a 10 mile radius). When one changes prices, the others do as well. The best explanation I've seen of this can be found here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html
Plus the current heath care reform proposal does a version of the "buy across state lines" via the health exchange. The difference is that it is a national standard. Which is good. That way the companies can't just offer the crap plan in the least regulated state only.
You also mention that each state has it's own insurance commission office. This, to me, is another reason for a nation system. Think of the cost savings in government spending if each state didn't need a full department just to deal with insurance regulations.
1. Buying insurance across state lines will not reduce insurance costs. What it will do is give insurers incentive to all pick up and move to the state with the most relaxed health care regulations. Then they can charge as much as they want for as little care as they can get away with. This is essentially what all of the credit card companies did in the past.
2. I'm assuming that you are going to limit payout on a scale based on incident right? $100,000 lose of use of a limb, $300,000 for an eye, $1,000,000 for accidental death. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits, but I think you'd have a tough time getting a consensus on the amount for each. And I don't think that limiting the amount would lower the number of malpractice lawyers. Even with lowered payouts, there is still a ton of money to be made. What we need is a way to discourage frivolous malpractice suits. You know like the people who sue their doctor after their wife has a c-section and now they don't want to have sex with her because or the scar and other stupid crap like that.
3. I'm not familiar with the drug approval process of Canada, however, I'm guessing that drug companies could lower prices or devote a seriously greater amount of fund to R&D if we'd pass a law banning drug ads on TV. You know the ones that tell you to ask your doctor about their latest drug that has side effects that sound 100 times worse than the condition it's treating.
4. Again, I'm not as familiar with the workings of HSAs. I don't really see how this is much difference than not having insurance and keeping a rainy day fund for med expenses, except the non-tax part of it. To me I don't see this as a way of reducing costs. It might eat away at Insurance profits if enough people did it.
5. Ah yes the illegals. Why stop there? What about the homeless? They aren't contributing to the system. Let's just let them all die too. Look, I'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either. I believe that we have a legal way of immigrating into this country and that people should follow the rules for coming here. But I also believe that those rules are just are draconian and messed up as our health care system. If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.
And from the sound of it, you want to regulate the payment amounts to hospitals (don't want them charging $30 for an aspirin). So would you also want to regulate reimbursement for insured people? I mean why should a hospital charge the Medicare $30 for an aspirin and only charge Blue Cross $10? Sounds a lot like you want someone to start regulating how much doctors and hospitals charge for their services. This sounds an awful lot like a single-payer system.
Re:dear libertarians and tea baggers:
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
If only that were true. Unfortunately, many Americans feel that landscaping, picking fruit and nuts and other low end jobs are beneath them. Besides they can make more by doing less and collecting unemployment. And of course it takes no effort at all to stand at the end of an exit ramp with a sign.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, TVersity isn't that great. For some reason it keeps "losing" it's connection with my Movies folder and just says there are no titles. Twonky was much better but I didn't think it was worth the license cost. I guess it's time to try PS3Media Center.
Agreed. I can't believe that enough people use V-Cast for Verizon to make back the licensing fees they must be paying to have the content.
So it means nothing to Android for you. For those of us who merely can't stand AT&T's crappy network, it means a lot.
For those of us stuck using a Blackberry because of work, it hardly matters. I just looked and I've used less than 10MB this month with a week and a half left in the cycle. The reason? The only app on Blackberry worth having that uses a lot of data is Pandora.
Either their network is getting a lot of use from Android phones, or they don't want to have to grandfather in an iPhone accounts when they switch. I think this is more proof that the Verizon iPhone is coming sooner rather than later. Add in the fact that Verizon is trying to through people off by saying they hope to get the iPhone in their LTE network and it sounds like the early 2011 rumors are true.
Or add it at all. My Blackberry Curve 8330 doesn't have WiFi at all.
And how will the new tiers affect those of us on unlimited business plans?
Big deal, I create a hot, dense state of matter every time I nuke a Hot Pocket.
pardon my non science background, but is there a way a to manufacture helium?
Sure we just need to capture a bunch of Hynerians and make them nervous.
Okay, I'm not advocating the complete running of stop signs or traffic lights. I'm saying that rolling stops for stops signs (ie you get to the stop sign, make sure nothing is coming and continue on before your vehicle has come to a complete stop) aren't a big deal.
Just down the road from me there was a 3 way intersection that was cut down to a straight through road. But they left the stops signs up as a way of slowing traffic through that area. That sort of crap shouldn't happen and people definitely shouldn't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop in that location.
Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.
I too am bugged by rolling stop fines. However the biggest problem I see with merging stop signs with yield signs is that some people tend to believe that a yield sign means they just need to try to merge with traffic, not stop and yield right of way.
No, Steve Jobs, dummy. It's a Retinal Display, right?
Sorry, didn't RTFA.
In my defense, our content filter blocked TFA.
Shouldn't the /. Bill Gates Borg icon appear on this story?
What about Frankenberry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mills_monster-themed_breakfast_cereals
I can see it now, the next revision to this law will add a 5 day waiting period to cells phones so that background checks can be performed. Just like hand guns.
Well are the saying goes "History is written by the victors." That's why it's "the west was won" not "the systematic genocide of the western Native American people". The problem with history is that it is usually written by involved parties. The only way you'd ever get an objective history is if it were written completely from a 3rd perspective that has no interest in the matter at hand.
Unfortunately, nothing like that exists or is possible as every history, even those written by 3rd party external observers are subject to the bias of that person's/group's moral beliefs.
The problem with that is that Apple is all about selling an experience, not necessarily just a product. What happens to their ability to market something as "it just works" if they let people put any crap on their device that crashes things all the time? Does Flash end up with the bad wrap that way? No the average user isn't smart enough to determine why their device has problems, they just know it doesn't work right. And they are then turned off to buying the next device next year.
I know a lot of people hate the App approval process and think that they should be allowed to run anything on their device. But part of the reason for that system is keep crap off the device that will interfere with the basic functionality of the device.
If you don't like it you have an option, don't buy it. If Apple doesn't sell devices, maybe they will have to rethink their policies. I don't see that happening though.
That's actually what I thought the 3D in movies like Monsters vs Aliens was like. I always could see those Magic Eye things, but I'm just not impressed by the 3D movies that have come out. I didn't even think Avatar was that great.
I really hope the industry keeps making the 2D versions along with the 3D versions. Otherwise I may have to break down and read a book or go outside.
Actually the elasticity of these things change with the among of force applied. When you try to punch these things hard (just like a bullet does) they seem to rigid. But when you try to handle them with less force, like try to slowly pull or push them (just like when you try to wear them), they seem to be really elastic.
So your question should be rephrased as how elastic it is, when a bullet strikes it? Is is strong enough to distribute the force of the bullet through out your torso and not cause a serious dent?
Good... the slow blade penetrates the shield...
Holy crap! I've been in meetings with 20 people that take forever and are drawn out simply because too many people need to hear their own voice. I don't blame this guy for zoning out. 51 isn't a council, that's a legislature.
Single-payer system.
I don't completely understood why someone would rather have a private, for-profit business standing between them and their doctor instead of just being able to go to their doctor and not having to worry about the billing side of things.
Well I partially get it. For some reason *cough*Bush/Chaney*cough* people are highly distrustful of the government. Okay you have a point there. But why the hell would you trust an insurance company? Their goal is to make as much money as possible. The only way they can do that is by charging you more, denying your claims and reimbursing doctors less. None of those are good things for you.
Ironic considering that Costa Rica has a universal health care system.
I'll use your order :)
5. I guess I'd like to see more numbers on the actual $$$ that emergency rooms spend on the uninsured. I'm sure it's high, but if the argument is that they go because it's free then why don't we hear about all the Americans running to Canada for the free healthcare? Again, I think you have some valid concerns about illegal immigrants, perhaps a solution would be a co-op program between hospitals and INS. Seems like illegals would avoid hospitals if they thought they might be deported.
4. Okay see, that is the type of system I don't mind. Although, I am curious as to who is holding your $2000 for you. Because whoever is holding it is making a ton of money on the interest. My other concern with this type of system is that it encourages the "wait and see" mentality. People hold off on trips to the doctor because they want to save money. Maybe they get better on their own, but maybe they get worse. And then they find out they now need an expensive procedure that could have been solved cheaper and easier if they'd have caught it early. But I can see the appeal to this type of system.
2. I'm sure that a leg does net you more than a finger these days. But this goes back to the topic of the $30 aspirin, if you want this all nicely planned out with a $ amount for each item/procedure then someone has to be in charge of picking the pricing. It's a matter of who you want to do the pricing. The insurance company? the doctors? The patients? The government? The first 3 entities have a personal stake in the matter. The government does in the case of Medicare/Medicade and Veteran Health programs. So really unless we have some completely unbiased organization come in and set those levels, you will never get the 4 groups to agree.
Plus once you set those levels, you've eliminated the ability of the capitalist principles or supply and demand to dictate pricing. At that point, why not just implement a single payer system?
1. Well as I said, why would an insurance company continue to operate in a state that required they cover a long list of conditions when they can move to a state that doesn't? Perhaps after they moved they would then be forced to compete with each other on price, but the more likely scenario would be informal price setting. It would be like the gas stations in your town. They all charge the same price (usually within a 10 mile radius). When one changes prices, the others do as well. The best explanation I've seen of this can be found here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_across_state.html
Plus the current heath care reform proposal does a version of the "buy across state lines" via the health exchange. The difference is that it is a national standard. Which is good. That way the companies can't just offer the crap plan in the least regulated state only.
You also mention that each state has it's own insurance commission office. This, to me, is another reason for a nation system. Think of the cost savings in government spending if each state didn't need a full department just to deal with insurance regulations.
[citation needed that isn't an OPINION column]
1. Buying insurance across state lines will not reduce insurance costs. What it will do is give insurers incentive to all pick up and move to the state with the most relaxed health care regulations. Then they can charge as much as they want for as little care as they can get away with. This is essentially what all of the credit card companies did in the past.
2. I'm assuming that you are going to limit payout on a scale based on incident right? $100,000 lose of use of a limb, $300,000 for an eye, $1,000,000 for accidental death. I'm not saying there shouldn't be limits, but I think you'd have a tough time getting a consensus on the amount for each. And I don't think that limiting the amount would lower the number of malpractice lawyers. Even with lowered payouts, there is still a ton of money to be made. What we need is a way to discourage frivolous malpractice suits. You know like the people who sue their doctor after their wife has a c-section and now they don't want to have sex with her because or the scar and other stupid crap like that.
3. I'm not familiar with the drug approval process of Canada, however, I'm guessing that drug companies could lower prices or devote a seriously greater amount of fund to R&D if we'd pass a law banning drug ads on TV. You know the ones that tell you to ask your doctor about their latest drug that has side effects that sound 100 times worse than the condition it's treating.
4. Again, I'm not as familiar with the workings of HSAs. I don't really see how this is much difference than not having insurance and keeping a rainy day fund for med expenses, except the non-tax part of it. To me I don't see this as a way of reducing costs. It might eat away at Insurance profits if enough people did it.
5. Ah yes the illegals. Why stop there? What about the homeless? They aren't contributing to the system. Let's just let them all die too. Look, I'm not a fan of illegal immigrant either. I believe that we have a legal way of immigrating into this country and that people should follow the rules for coming here. But I also believe that those rules are just are draconian and messed up as our health care system. If you want to address the problem if illegals in this country then you first need to address the immigration process.
And from the sound of it, you want to regulate the payment amounts to hospitals (don't want them charging $30 for an aspirin). So would you also want to regulate reimbursement for insured people? I mean why should a hospital charge the Medicare $30 for an aspirin and only charge Blue Cross $10? Sounds a lot like you want someone to start regulating how much doctors and hospitals charge for their services. This sounds an awful lot like a single-payer system.
Well said. Wish I had mod points to give you.
If only that were true. Unfortunately, many Americans feel that landscaping, picking fruit and nuts and other low end jobs are beneath them. Besides they can make more by doing less and collecting unemployment. And of course it takes no effort at all to stand at the end of an exit ramp with a sign.