It is a terrible trend of new age media to down vote dissenting views. Only group think supported here!
I'd be happy if moderators learned the difference between sarcasm, humor, making valid point and actual troll / flamebait and didn't get their undies inappropriately bunched. [ Note: I'm not holding my breath. ]
1. Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.
So true. Real world example: My wife was diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor (GBM - Glioblastoma Multiforme) the day before Thanksgiving 2005 and died seven weeks later on Jan 13, 2006. One of her chemotherapy medications was Temodar. According to the pharmacist, the list price for a one-month supply of pills was $11,000. The co-pay using my BC/BS would have been $1,100 (10%) and the copay using her Optima HMO was $35.
As for her seven-weeks of hospital and doctors' bills, we paid less than $500 total in co-pays. I was able to see the billed vs. negotiated insurance payments on the Optima website and the negotiated rates were substantially lower. I'm not complaining personally, but if the hospital and doctors can accept the negotiated rates, why can't they simply charge that much in the first place? Does the "write-off" count as a tax deduction?
Admittedly, you make some good points that can, at least in theory, be valuable some of the time, but you don't seem to really understand what the word "fact" means. I guess I really shouldn't try engaging you; another poster responded to you best -- back slowly away from the Ayn Rand -- and there's really no talking with people like you, because you're so dogmatically attached to beliefs that actual, demonstrable facts don't matter. For better or worse, the world doesn't work the way you believe it does or would like it to. That's not directly your fault, of course, but your failure to understand that is - and makes you part of the problem, not the solution. Wanting to change toe world is admirable, but you need to really understand it, how things are and how they got that way, before you can offer any useful help and not just make things worse. I'm not an expert, by any stretch, but know enough to see plainly that neither are you - by any stretch. I know my limits; you, apparently, need to learn yours.
You do realize that what I wrote is a direct ripoff from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and what happened to planet Krikkit - right? If not, hand in your geek card.:-)
After reviewing the current state of Earth, in general, and of US politics and their recent "debates", in specific, Judiciary Pag has realized that the Earth population will not be satisfied alongside the existence of the rest of the Universe, and has sentenced Earth and its sun sealed in a Slo-Time envelope within which time will pass almost infinitely slowly until the end of the Universe, thus serving the dual purpose of protecting the Universe from Earth, and allowing us Earthlings to enjoy a solitary existence in the twilight of Creation.
The atomic clock at Aalto University has simply detected that sentence being carried out.
Sure everyone knows they generate location data.... but that location data is *NOT* automatically public information unless the public actually has a direct way to receive and analyze it. Obtaining it for another person typically requires the explicit cooperation of a third party. Therefore, it should require a warrant.
Furthermore, phones don't always broadcast location information. I usually keep the GPS chip off on my phone to save power. Sure, my location can be generally determined from tower and IP information - depending on how I'm connected - but I'm not broadcasting that information.
(a) My initial statement was meant as more of a joke - and was modded as such. (b) Republicans assume that lowering taxes - usually and mainly on the rich - stimulates the economy as those "job creators" reinvest that money back into the economy. History and studies have shown that not to be the case. Reducing taxes on the rich, just makes them richer. The way Republicans like to reduce taxes shifts the burden to the middle-class, who then end up paying for Government services used by not only the poor, but the middle-class themselves. In addition, making everyone pay the same rate and, assuming by loopholes you also mean deductions, eliminating all "loopholes" disproportionately injures the poor as a larger proportion of there basic earnings is spent on necessities as opposed to the wealthier. Hardly fair.
The Tea Party only cares about reducing spending on things that (a) they, themselves, don't care about and (b) doesn't affect them. They're not quite the paragons of virtue and fiscal responsibility you perceive them to be through your rose-colored glasses. For example, to quote from the Rolling Stone article (from 2010 mind you):
(Rand) Paul... denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, "should be allowed to make a comfortable living."
Quite the self-serving hypocrite, Rand Paul. His father, Ron Paul, on the other hand, was probably closer to the real thing for which you yearn.
"Rolling Stone" ? you mean the Far Left rag that lionized the Tsarnaev's? *that* is your argument for wanting Big Government, financial bankruptcy and subsequent social collapse? all so you can avoid the economic FACT that decreasing taxes to around 23% produces a higher long-term tax take? wow, just wow.
No, obtuse guy I'm not arguing that. Simply pointing out that the Tea Party isn't all you think it is. Read *this* article, the interviews and reporting are sound. So, wow just wow, your fucking self. As far as your 23%, the effective tax rate is already less than then in the US for many (most?) individuals and most corporations pay *way* less than the official rate (if they pay any taxes at all).
Amazing what Republicans think we don't need - many of whom are rich, old, straight, white guys - like a living wage, affordable health insurance, control of our own bodies, the right to love who we love and live as who we are... Of course, pretty sure *they* have all that. Just sayin'. [ He said, as a 52-year-old, fairly well off, fairly straight, white widower, with more friends who are LGBT than not. ]
I don't generally disagree with any of your points. However, before you idolize the Tea Party - or those that support them - too much, you might want to read The Truth About the Tea Party. There's a lot of financial ignorance and hypocrisy lurking there... [short excerpt follows]
As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.
"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."
A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.
After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.
"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."
I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
Now , it is obvious that if you lower taxes too much you get less Government Revenue (as if this was a bad thing - when the State steals money from the industrious and innovative). Also, if you raise taxes too much it also strangles the economy too, resulting in lower economic growth which means lower tax take in the long term.
You'd think so, but check the US deficit and national debt during Republican vs Democratic terms and you'll see this isn't (necessarily) true. Our economy, debt and deficit have fared worse under Republican terms than Democratic. Perhaps this was a result of the Goldilocks effect you describe, maybe not. In any case, the Republicans want to substantially lower taxes on the Rich in the mistaken belief that they will reinvest that money into the economy, by hiring and expanding, when history and studies have shown that they tend to (mainly) squirrel that away or spend it on themselves. Their companies are now getting along with fewer of those pesky employees; why hire more when you can simply work the ones you have to death - who are scared to leave because the "economy is bad" and no one's hiring...
Perhaps a little hyperbolic, but there's more truth in the above than there should be.
It's not actually that hard to understand. 20% of a bigger number is better than 25% of a smaller one. (Or one that goes overseas to pay the 20% instead of staying here.)
Pretty sure "voodoo economics" has been well debunked by now, unless you're a Republican, who doesn't understand history and math.
CG done right though? Just look at Final Fantasy: Advent Children. It came out in 2005, is 100% CG, and still looks damn good even though it is 11 years old now. Guess that is what happens when you literally have to make advances in the fields you are using to make a movie though, you get something that holds up pretty well.
Or Gravity where something like +80% of the 91 min running time is CG. Sure it's only 3 years old, but the CG will probably hold up well over time.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a terrible trend of new age media to down vote dissenting views. Only group think supported here!
I'd be happy if moderators learned the difference between sarcasm, humor, making valid point and actual troll / flamebait and didn't get their undies inappropriately bunched. [ Note: I'm not holding my breath. ]
I have a better, better idea.
1. Use real costs. The fact that there is an "insurance cost" and a "self pay costs" tells us all we need to know about medical bills. They aren't tied to the actual cost of service in any meaningful way.
So true. Real world example: My wife was diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor (GBM - Glioblastoma Multiforme) the day before Thanksgiving 2005 and died seven weeks later on Jan 13, 2006. One of her chemotherapy medications was Temodar. According to the pharmacist, the list price for a one-month supply of pills was $11,000. The co-pay using my BC/BS would have been $1,100 (10%) and the copay using her Optima HMO was $35.
As for her seven-weeks of hospital and doctors' bills, we paid less than $500 total in co-pays. I was able to see the billed vs. negotiated insurance payments on the Optima website and the negotiated rates were substantially lower. I'm not complaining personally, but if the hospital and doctors can accept the negotiated rates, why can't they simply charge that much in the first place? Does the "write-off" count as a tax deduction?
Not much plastic in a Delorean - the body of the car is sheet metal, unlike a lot of modern cars.
I thought the body was stainless steel on these things - no need for paint.
Admittedly, you make some good points that can, at least in theory, be valuable some of the time, but you don't seem to really understand what the word "fact" means. I guess I really shouldn't try engaging you; another poster responded to you best -- back slowly away from the Ayn Rand -- and there's really no talking with people like you, because you're so dogmatically attached to beliefs that actual, demonstrable facts don't matter. For better or worse, the world doesn't work the way you believe it does or would like it to. That's not directly your fault, of course, but your failure to understand that is - and makes you part of the problem, not the solution. Wanting to change toe world is admirable, but you need to really understand it, how things are and how they got that way, before you can offer any useful help and not just make things worse. I'm not an expert, by any stretch, but know enough to see plainly that neither are you - by any stretch. I know my limits; you, apparently, need to learn yours.
Have a nice day.
Who has a list of which configuration options I need to go into about:config and disable this time?
As buchner.johannes noted, just don't subscribe to anything, but from what I have read, set:
Other candidates seem to also be:
Who has a list of which configuration options I need to go into about:config and disable this time?
As buchner.johannes noted, just don't subscribe to anything, but from what I have read, set:
Sounds kind of familiar...
Thanks, I hadn't heard of that book/author.
You do realize that what I wrote is a direct ripoff from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and what happened to planet Krikkit - right? If not, hand in your geek card. :-)
After reviewing the current state of Earth, in general, and of US politics and their recent "debates", in specific, Judiciary Pag has realized that the Earth population will not be satisfied alongside the existence of the rest of the Universe, and has sentenced Earth and its sun sealed in a Slo-Time envelope within which time will pass almost infinitely slowly until the end of the Universe, thus serving the dual purpose of protecting the Universe from Earth, and allowing us Earthlings to enjoy a solitary existence in the twilight of Creation.
The atomic clock at Aalto University has simply detected that sentence being carried out.
There's so much wrong with Randall's "rich and self-righteous" comment that I don't even know where to start.
People always accuse others of their greatest sin. It's a guilt thing.
Sounds about right. It also seems that hypocrites are blind to the maligned traits in themselves. Don't know if it's willful or not.
Randall Rothenburg, ... accused adblockers of subverting freedom of the press.
(a) The First Amendment only applies in the US, and (b) only applies with regard to the Government. Why don't people understand this?
Rothenburg characterized the Adblock Plus team as "operating a business model predicated on censorship of content."
People have the right to determine what is/isn't downloaded to their own devices, using the bandwidth for which they pay.
There's so much wrong with Randall's "rich and self-righteous" comment that I don't even know where to start.
Sure everyone knows they generate location data.... but that location data is *NOT* automatically public information unless the public actually has a direct way to receive and analyze it. Obtaining it for another person typically requires the explicit cooperation of a third party. Therefore, it should require a warrant.
Furthermore, phones don't always broadcast location information. I usually keep the GPS chip off on my phone to save power. Sure, my location can be generally determined from tower and IP information - depending on how I'm connected - but I'm not broadcasting that information.
Indeed. I used to change the LCD panels on the HP printers to say "Insert Coin".
Better than "PC Load Letter" - what the fuck does that mean? [ My Office Space reference for the day. ]
Dial down the Autism dude.
(a) My initial statement was meant as more of a joke - and was modded as such. (b) Republicans assume that lowering taxes - usually and mainly on the rich - stimulates the economy as those "job creators" reinvest that money back into the economy. History and studies have shown that not to be the case. Reducing taxes on the rich, just makes them richer. The way Republicans like to reduce taxes shifts the burden to the middle-class, who then end up paying for Government services used by not only the poor, but the middle-class themselves. In addition, making everyone pay the same rate and, assuming by loopholes you also mean deductions, eliminating all "loopholes" disproportionately injures the poor as a larger proportion of there basic earnings is spent on necessities as opposed to the wealthier. Hardly fair.
The Tea Party only cares about reducing spending on things that (a) they, themselves, don't care about and (b) doesn't affect them. They're not quite the paragons of virtue and fiscal responsibility you perceive them to be through your rose-colored glasses. For example, to quote from the Rolling Stone article (from 2010 mind you):
(Rand) Paul ... denounced Medicare as "socialized medicine." But this spring, when confronted with the idea of reducing Medicare payments to doctors like himself — half of his patients are on Medicare — he balked. This candidate, a man ostensibly so against government power in all its forms that he wants to gut the Americans With Disabilities Act and abolish the departments of Education and Energy, was unwilling to reduce his own government compensation, for a very logical reason. "Physicians," he said, "should be allowed to make a comfortable living."
Quite the self-serving hypocrite, Rand Paul. His father, Ron Paul, on the other hand, was probably closer to the real thing for which you yearn.
Cheers.
"Rolling Stone" ? you mean the Far Left rag that lionized the Tsarnaev's? *that* is your argument for wanting Big Government, financial bankruptcy and subsequent social collapse? all so you can avoid the economic FACT that decreasing taxes to around 23% produces a higher long-term tax take? wow, just wow.
No, obtuse guy I'm not arguing that. Simply pointing out that the Tea Party isn't all you think it is. Read *this* article, the interviews and reporting are sound. So, wow just wow, your fucking self. As far as your 23%, the effective tax rate is already less than then in the US for many (most?) individuals and most corporations pay *way* less than the official rate (if they pay any taxes at all).
Amazing what Republicans think we don't need - many of whom are rich, old, straight, white guys - like a living wage, affordable health insurance, control of our own bodies, the right to love who we love and live as who we are... Of course, pretty sure *they* have all that. Just sayin'. [ He said, as a 52-year-old, fairly well off, fairly straight, white widower, with more friends who are LGBT than not. ]
'Our idea was if we had a national 'interstate highway for electrons' ...
We can barely get Congress to fund maintaining our interstate highway for cars and trucks.
Or trains. (Forgot about them.)
Construction equipment doesn't run on lithium batteries.
My cordless drill does - checkmate. :-)
'Our idea was if we had a national 'interstate highway for electrons' ...
We can barely get Congress to fund maintaining our interstate highway for cars and trucks.
I don't generally disagree with any of your points. However, before you idolize the Tea Party - or those that support them - too much, you might want to read The Truth About the Tea Party. There's a lot of financial ignorance and hypocrisy lurking there... [short excerpt follows]
As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.
"The scooters are because of Medicare," he whispers helpfully. "They have these commercials down here: 'You won't even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!' Practically everyone in Kentucky has one."
A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it.
After Palin wraps up, I race to the parking lot in search of departing Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives. I come upon an elderly couple, Janice and David Wheelock, who are fairly itching to share their views.
"I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
"OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
"Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."
I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."
Cheers.
Now , it is obvious that if you lower taxes too much you get less Government Revenue (as if this was a bad thing - when the State steals money from the industrious and innovative). Also, if you raise taxes too much it also strangles the economy too, resulting in lower economic growth which means lower tax take in the long term.
You'd think so, but check the US deficit and national debt during Republican vs Democratic terms and you'll see this isn't (necessarily) true. Our economy, debt and deficit have fared worse under Republican terms than Democratic. Perhaps this was a result of the Goldilocks effect you describe, maybe not. In any case, the Republicans want to substantially lower taxes on the Rich in the mistaken belief that they will reinvest that money into the economy, by hiring and expanding, when history and studies have shown that they tend to (mainly) squirrel that away or spend it on themselves. Their companies are now getting along with fewer of those pesky employees; why hire more when you can simply work the ones you have to death - who are scared to leave because the "economy is bad" and no one's hiring...
Perhaps a little hyperbolic, but there's more truth in the above than there should be.
It's not actually that hard to understand. 20% of a bigger number is better than 25% of a smaller one. (Or one that goes overseas to pay the 20% instead of staying here.)
Pretty sure "voodoo economics" has been well debunked by now, unless you're a Republican, who doesn't understand history and math.
Making change for $1.00 and getting $1.10 back. That's the premise of overunity, free energy, and perpetual motion experiments.
And any Republican tax plan: lower taxes == more revenue. [ No wonder they hate science and math. :-) ]
CG done right though? Just look at Final Fantasy: Advent Children. It came out in 2005, is 100% CG, and still looks damn good even though it is 11 years old now. Guess that is what happens when you literally have to make advances in the fields you are using to make a movie though, you get something that holds up pretty well.
Or Gravity where something like +80% of the 91 min running time is CG. Sure it's only 3 years old, but the CG will probably hold up well over time.