What you are talking about has been tried many times in the past and has always come out behind the current systems.
The objective should never be to "employ the maximum number of people". That is the intended side effect; not objective. There are many failed and current states that tried to make that an objective. India, Russia, Poland, a few South American countries, a few African countries, etc.
"Modern economics" was built upon these many many lessons learned over centuries. I wouldn't dismiss them so lightly. Given a few considerations, scope, and boundaries, there are slightly better models than today. But, as shitty as our models are, they are far better than the ones before.
I understand that simple answers like "US is the only country that taxes foreign income" sound like great words to bitch about without knowing reality... let's get some details in here to actually have an adult discussion. Keep in mind that we are talking about personal taxes, not corporate.
1) The US doesn't tax the first $100k of foreign income. BTW, that's a LOT of money in most of the world.
2) The US doesn't double tax your foreign income. So taxes you paid in your foreign country of residence can be credited against your US foreign taxes (still need to pay domestic taxes). Almost every country in the world has a higher personal income tax rate than the US.
With those, you can basically not pay US taxes on foreign income.
3) Almost all countries tax your foreign income IF you live in their country. So usually an American in German will have state side assets that appreciate and will have to pay the higher local income tax rates in Germany. s/German/{almost all other countries}
So realistically speaking, US foreign taxes are far better than almost all others.
As for not paying taxes... reprecussions are similar to others. Except in many countries, the government can come after your family's assets (children & wife) not just yours. Almost all other countries have a higher inflation than the dollar or peg their currency so they are "stealing" more. Not to mention there are countries where the government will actually give your land to someone else in your extended absence.
Also keep in mind that the US maintains and protects the vast majority of the trade lanes in the world. So if you have any significant foreign income, you are directly benefiting from this while paying very little for it.
The US is one of the few countries in the world where taxes are entirely voluntary. YES, you heard that right. People here don't know what forced taxation is nor what taking under threat of violence is; so they whine about what they think it is.
Every American can increase their exemptions to the point where you pay no taxes. You can also lie on your tax returns to keep your money. Is this legal, no. If you are going to earn money off the system, you have to pay the system. You are welcome to pay as absolutely little as the book say, no penny less.
You are welcome to forfeit your citizenship and move to another country. That will absolve you of your US tax responsibility. Not many countries have this ability. Heck, you can even earn your salary in another country, keep your citizenship, and avoid much of the taxes.
As for not supporting foreign wars or municipal boondoggles; no you did. Welcome to Democracy or semi-Democracy. Its a compromise based system, meaning no one is happy with the result. The parts of the deal you don't like... you are still responsible for. You don't have dictators in this country, you don't have royal families, it isn't a colony or some territory; its a system run by representatives of the citizenship. SO each and everyone (including myself) are responsible for the good and the bad.... contrary to what both political parties what you to think. There is no one else to blame or take credit for but ourselves.
Both aim bots and xray are really old problems. Counter Strike solved them 15 years ago.
I don't remember Aim Bot anti-cheat very well, but the destination point (head) was given jitter so that your Aim Bot shook and you had a small but significant chance of missing.
XRay, the server only gives you the data of those that you could see. Additionally it determined if the bullet trajectory was valid based on point, direction, & velocity of initial firing. They ended up being able to have partially penetrable walls and boxes. Even if the user had XRay, you would be invisible behind the box. But if he fired, the box would protect you against a submachine gun, but not against an AWP.
Additional protections include providing a mini virtual environment that checks all game files for tampering. If anything didn't add up, the server wouldn't connect.
All of the above and similar stuff still allowed some people to cheat. So the perfect anti-cheat... in game voting. This was very simple, since killed off people could observe live plays, people could initiate kick votes that kicked a player suspected of cheating. Of course good players got kicked too, but they were clearly playing against armatures and should have moved onto more competitive grounds.
The article's legal mess is basically the company offloading their development costs onto society rather than hire people with brains to deal with the real world.
OK... where to start. A lot of what you said about Bitcoin, is alrightish. Everything you said about the stock market is pretty much dead wrong.
Warren Buffet isn't a regular trader. He is a hybrid between a lender and trader. His funding doesn't come from purchasing the same shares as you or I would. He gets special control, walkout clauses, and schedules. He also has restrictions like not being able to do shareholder control, or having to hold the shares for X time (similar to CEOs). So he might give a company $9 million in funds, but he won't be able to sell them for 5 years or he can if the price goes below $X (many times even above $Y). He might give it based on the the company focusing in a specific market sector or putting it into R&D, etc. He might guarantee that he will provide the funding over the next 10 years on a $1 million per year basis but that the price can't fluctuate outside a certain window. Etc.
Mr Buffet doesn't do trading like we do. A elephant can't move like the mice in a glassware shop.
The vast majority of the institutions that act in the stock market are government/company pensions, retirement accounts, insurance accounts, escrows, and rich entities (ie: trusts, rich people/companies, estates, etc). If they played on buy low, sell high, they would just be stealing funds from each other. They aren't stupid, nor foolish to believe one will beat the others. If that's all the stock market is, they can stick to far more fun games (ie: commodities trading, futures, & currencies). These entities are also well regulated (so is Buffet), they aren't allowed to do pump & dump, nor invest widely in unregulated entities like Bitcoin (thou they can still plan regulated exposure).
This is why private unregulated hedge funds were and still are so popular. The majority are them are very successful but some get too big. Of course its a winner-loser game for them so losses are spectacular (ie: Madoff, Cohen, Rajaratnam,...).
There is an inherent cost in maintaining bitcoin that does need to be funded. It isn't so small that the network can be maintained at any price point nor will its stable value sustain it. It needs to continue transactions at a good enough volume to justify its network. In this regard, Bitcoin is similar to ETFs but much more expensive to maintain and conduct transactions in.
Many ETFs have been dismantled for less reasons. But then again, Bitcoin doesn't have a central authority like ETFs to make an authoritarian decision. Its a consensus based network. Eventually its network will shrink as players no longer find it worth the effort. As players shrink it will exponentially shrink its value proposition. At some point, the futures market will drop them and it will go back to its unchecked speculation. This may raise another short bubble, but not like this one.
Finally, its network will live on charity, but at this point it would be very difficult to determine its value in Dollars. It is no longer worth the effort and not enough people care. Which makes it as good as dead. I think this will happen far before it can fall below the $100 point. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make it below $1000.
I really meant technology, but for the following: -put up a big screen at each center that shows the number/percentage of times a candidate lied, told half truths, and truths. -their tenure -the top three things they stand for (1000 chars) and they can't change it per state/ballot. -how many times they stood up for, didn't take part in, or caved on the prior -public cameras that allow anyone online to see the voting area and counting.
All of the above has a QR code that points back to the official government website that all this is supposed to stream off of. So that anyone can check for tampering.
Also, all results are withheld from media, candidates, etc till they are ALL in. At which point the winner is stated and then the circus can have their way wasting everyone's time on analyzing the states. This way it provides a bit more confidence that all votes are equal. AND we don't make the elections a damn football game.
Right... the ENTIRE metoo movement is made up of people just like you describe. So let's dismiss the entire topic because YOU think it is much smaller than it appears.
Even if 75% of that tag is what you say, it is still worth the discussion as it gives voice to the 25% who had none before.
Also, murder has no statute of limitations, atleast in the US.
I don't think anyone has much faith in the strength of political ideas. People don't even vote for "their party" here, they blindly vote against the "other guy's party". They rarely vote for the actual ideals & feasibility of the candidates nor hold them accountable. If it was the other way around, there would be more parties than just the three. The fact we lump "other" into "Independent" shows how messed up it is.
I think the US has a great political system when compared to other Democracies but in this area, we are far behind. In many other systems, the gridlock we see would result in government disbandment and re-elections! That rarely happens because those parties figure out how to compromise and work things out.
Because Technological solutions can not solve People problems. And it has no chance against political ones.
It has become a recent issue because of automation. We could have done this for more than a century. manually Just don't present the independent math guy with political affiliation as part of the data set. Automation, we could do for decades.
But what political group would want to lose that attribute as a weapon? So humans did it... along with all their biases. But when humans were doing it, they messed up enough that the results didn't follow intent. Not a big deal. Now with big data and computers, the intent has been programmed in on top of the population constraint. Its automated to give the current party the benefit.
Wider disclosure of a vulnerability means a greater chance that it's leaked to those who would exploit it for malicious purposes.
This has a very poor underlying assumption: White hats always know about exploits prior to Black hats. Considering the latter are far better funded, have better incentives, and don't disclose; I think the betting is that it is already used for malicious purposes.
Additionally, this is the information age, not the dead tree, secret squirrel, stamped "for your eyes only" days. In this age, does it really matter if 100 or 10000 people know a confidential piece of information? You only need ONE individual in that set to provide the information to malicious actors. Additionally, there are a multitude of incentives and multitude of avenues for sharing with little chance of getting caught.
Given the above, full disclosure is far better than limited disclosure.
Also, due to the nature of the BSD license, it's code is in a ton of software around the world. The assumption that it isn't widely used is wishful thinking of the unknown.
You would think there would be a mention of lasers somewhere in the post. It is Slashdot after all. Sharks, ice, and... Come ON, it writes itself... how we have fallen.
They are not saying equal distance across all units like a train. Trains do not have units coming and going. Nor do detached units have a central authority setting their individual speeds.
You can have units at...1,5,9,13... distance (there is no beginning nor end). And if a unit mergers after #1, it can become 1,3,5,9,13 => 1,3,6,9,13 => 1,3.5,6,10,13 => 1,3.5,6.25,10,13.5..., etc. (of course 1 would move forward too but did not for simplicitys sake).
With units coming and going, there would rarely be a state of equal distance among all. This method while allowing individual distance determination, decreases the distance each unit moves further away from the disturbance (front and back).
We all know that the backward compounding of a disturbance is what causes traffic jams. Which is what happens in a safest/buffer/minimum front distance based methods.
I remember coming across this solution 10 years ago as a simulation result, but I do not remember the application:/. But that is really nothing. If these guys have mathematically proven it, bravo! The applications go well beyond traffic.
Well, they are just saying that rather than minimum distances, safe distances, or buffers on the prior, equal front-back distance is a better model for throughput. Not that it will prevent traffic jams. And it is meant for autonomous cars.
A centrally managed system would probably be better but an anonymous car will not be able to determine that on its own.
It is year end. It makes sense that some of the long term holders (1yr+) sell off to get the lower tax rates. Others maybe splitting the profits between 2018 & 2019. A few of those two groups and then a ton of panicked sellers cashed out.
Also people probably needed the cash to buy gifts during the year end sales or pay off things.
Climate 'science' is essentially a religion because of how detached it is from the observed evidence.
Among scientists who study this all the time, you are in the severe minority here. Why should we think you are right and the majority from multiple backgrounds and disciplines are wrong?
Coming up with conclusions that fit the needs of politicians who want to impose taxes on carbon, of all the absurd things to tax, is contradictory to the scientific method.
You are mixing politics with science. The application of the latter by the former is rarely scientific. Usually more religious, customs, and emotional based. Politics has historically been a subset of religion.
But to counter, there is far far more funding, establishment, players, and status quo for proving Climate Change wrong than there is proving it right. Politically, if there was any concrete doubt in CC, we would not be having this discussion. It would have been settled and snuff out well before it hit the media.
He is a ex-felon and this having trouble getting a job. So he comes up with an idea to get back in jail, picking on a company who declined his resume a few times.
He did not seem to have hurt anyone, but only threatened them (with gun violence too). And he got 3 years worth of meals on the tax payers dime.
He works for the CIA as a North Korean agent who the KGB thinks defected and then used to spy on the Brits. MI6 thinks he is a lost American tourist that can not seem to find his way out of their building.
On a side note, I hope he never goes to NK... this post might get him in a lot of trouble.
Side side note, queue all the govt AI systems that read this post and elevate his security clearance because it appears too low.
20 minutes is NOTHING compared to the US. My dad, a friend, and I have been to the ER once over the last 5 years.
-Dad: The forms took 30 minutes to fill out. We spent 6 hours going to different rooms getting checked out (4 tests). The nurses didn't know what test was already done and what he was waiting on. The only people who knew the status, was the front RECEPTIONISTS who were already busy accepting walkins. Half the testing stations asked & took down the same damn information over and over again. Everything was put into computers & tablets with complex forms. Every single thing was scanned in followed by scanning his wrist band.
-Friend: Had a bad bike fall & minor cut that wouldn't stop bleeding. They checked him all in within 30 minutes. Bandaged him up and put cold press on it while he was waiting for stitches. After waiting 2 hours on a bed in a cold hallway, he stopped one of the nurses to get an ETA. Another hour later, he just left and went to another ER further away where they fixed him up in 2 hours. He still got a huge bill from the first ER that equated to $250/hour.
-Me: I had a nose bleed that wouldn't stop. Clinic said to go to ER. I knew one a bit further away but was rarely packed. Took 30 minutes to get a bed. There were maybe two other patients. Got pretty good service compared to most places. Released me after IVs and 4 hours of monitoring and a small prescription. Bill was roughly $300/hour. The clinic was $155 for the entire checkup.
ER is very fast if you have a life threatening emergency. But once you are stable (ie: still have that bullet in you), you might as well use your cell to find a doctor who will take care of you and walk out. The ER will just forget about you.
And honestly, it is not the ER's fault. I don't blame them. All the specialists I saw, knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the machines, and got people out very quickly. It was the receiving, discharge, and waiting overhead between tests that was unbearable. They are just busy. Everything in the US gets sent to ER. None of the above would need an ER in other countries. About 1/3 of what clinics do can be done at home via first aid. After the xrays and basic prescription stuff, they pretty much tell you to go to ER unless you can wait 1-2 weeks for a doctor or a referral to go to a specialist in 2-4 weeks.
And all the IT systems seemed geared toward billing. Or more accurately, provide all the reasoning, time, cost, and usage of everything so that the evidence speaks for itself when someone disputes. Its a colossal waste of resources. It hardly seems to help the doctors or nurses. They just tab or scroll over to the memo section and see the comments & actions taken thus far and add their own.
It is mostly cofinanced. According wikipedia, 28% is fed, 29% is pharma, 19% is biotech. The rest is public, private, & charity mix.
Then you have to consider that almost all research is tax deductible which with a conservative 20% tax rate, thatâ(TM)s another 9% coming from fed & local govt.
Then there is the patent aspect that is given to the company cosponsoring. Which pretty much privatizes the benefits of said research.
Also companies rarely fund âoegood for societyâ research. Normally it is what ever has the highest return. The govt has to âoeencourageâ via cofunding and patent grants, to research rare or common but low return diseases (ie: malaria).
Finally, the infrastructure to support the research is usually on the govt dime. Such as CDC & WHO maintaining stock of the most hazardous substances & diseases.
So in the US, there is significant public funding but ROI seems almost entirely private.
excessive regulation, excessive education requirements, an artificially limited supply of practitioners, mandatory insurance that encourages excessive billing
This is very misleading and also wrong. The regulations and education requirements do bring up the price of healthcare but account for a very small part of the increase. Do you honestly think regulations are why those general drug makers are increasing prices by 500% in a short time?
As for excessive billing... have you ever been billed for healthcare? Regulations have little to do if it. An uninsured person will get billed 4-5x the rate of an In Network insured patient. This was true before Obamacare. The insurance companies negotiated low rates but the end effect was to just raise prices on those without insurance.... the ones who can not afford the lower rate in the first place.
Additionally billing for a overnight stay at a hospital is horrendous. No one can give you an estimate for costs without a 20% margin! They can give you a rough likely price but say you could see additional billings from other providers?!? You will get a heavily discounted bill for the room that you do not need to pay until the insurance partially covers it. Then the rest is on you. And that might be corrected again later ending in a credit or additional billing.
Of course that is just the hospital. You came in through ER, another bill. Did the hospital use an external anesthesiologist, another bill. Did they use an external lab, another bill. Did you use an ambulance, another bill. Did your primary care physician come to check on you, another bill. Did a specialist come to check on you, another bill. Did they order special medication for you, another bill.
Each of these bills go through the back and forth discount, partial payment , review, adjustment, invoice, etc process. Many times people do not know their bill for 3-5 months! None of this is regulations based. Because the system charges those who can not pay more, there is a lot of unpaid bills. No one wants to be the bill collector and aggregate/bundle the costs. So each spends resources billing and negotiating their part of the equation.
Most readers are thinking that they do not see this complexity. You have the standard old plan of paying just the deductible. But this all happens in the background even for you and is handled by a complex network of healthcare payers and payees. People with HSAs will see a little behind the curtain. Those without proper insurance will see more and also deal with debt collectors who might contact them 6-12 months after service!
That horrible inefficient system is further burdened by arcane IT systems. Each provider has different ways to collect. Some only accept bank draft, others mailed/called CC info, others will have a website with disfunctional forms, etc. The reference that they provided you to tie back to the service is the cryptic procedure/medicine, its provider ID code, your name, date of procedure, billing company name, date of bill. That is it, good luck keeping track of all the bills if you visit an ER 2x in one year.
All these costs bundle into the cost of healthcare. And there is no incentive to reduce the complexity because you, the patient, do not get to choose the service nor provider nor know the bill up front. You are a captive customer.
Imagine going into a Kroger (grocery store) and walking out, not getting billed. Then a month later the bill arrives. Then another for each of the non-Kroger brands you bought. And you get a 70% discount if you are a member. No other industry is this absolutely stupid in IT and billing.
The industry has created a massive price distortion all by itself over the last 40 years. Congress knew about it and has been incompetent it addressing it for that long! Regulations have not really helped, but they are hardly a quarter of the pie. Insurance for all partially helps because you do not bill people for what they can not pay and avoid the resource wastage of that whole process!
You would be surprised how many people do not know or do not care to. I am talking about IT people, not Mom & Pop. The customer âoeJust wants it working!â Is the excuse. Other times people just do not want the authentication to be a factor in troubleshooting and forget to close access afterward.
Many times, it is a bit of both. And the amount these people get paid (75k+), they should be fired for negligence. I once had to tell a client that they left their Sharepoint with sensitive data open to everyone in the world! They thought âoeeveryoneâ was just their one small office worth of sales people. This is an office with 2-3 IT people supporting it. And then they wondered why the company took the servers to the data center. But those 3 people still work at that office!
Slashdot Mirror
What you are talking about has been tried many times in the past and has always come out behind the current systems.
The objective should never be to "employ the maximum number of people". That is the intended side effect; not objective. There are many failed and current states that tried to make that an objective. India, Russia, Poland, a few South American countries, a few African countries, etc.
"Modern economics" was built upon these many many lessons learned over centuries. I wouldn't dismiss them so lightly. Given a few considerations, scope, and boundaries, there are slightly better models than today. But, as shitty as our models are, they are far better than the ones before.
I understand that simple answers like "US is the only country that taxes foreign income" sound like great words to bitch about without knowing reality... let's get some details in here to actually have an adult discussion. Keep in mind that we are talking about personal taxes, not corporate.
1) The US doesn't tax the first $100k of foreign income. BTW, that's a LOT of money in most of the world.
2) The US doesn't double tax your foreign income. So taxes you paid in your foreign country of residence can be credited against your US foreign taxes (still need to pay domestic taxes). Almost every country in the world has a higher personal income tax rate than the US.
With those, you can basically not pay US taxes on foreign income.
3) Almost all countries tax your foreign income IF you live in their country. So usually an American in German will have state side assets that appreciate and will have to pay the higher local income tax rates in Germany. s/German/{almost all other countries}
So realistically speaking, US foreign taxes are far better than almost all others.
As for not paying taxes... reprecussions are similar to others. Except in many countries, the government can come after your family's assets (children & wife) not just yours. Almost all other countries have a higher inflation than the dollar or peg their currency so they are "stealing" more. Not to mention there are countries where the government will actually give your land to someone else in your extended absence.
Also keep in mind that the US maintains and protects the vast majority of the trade lanes in the world. So if you have any significant foreign income, you are directly benefiting from this while paying very little for it.
The US is one of the few countries in the world where taxes are entirely voluntary. YES, you heard that right. People here don't know what forced taxation is nor what taking under threat of violence is; so they whine about what they think it is.
Every American can increase their exemptions to the point where you pay no taxes. You can also lie on your tax returns to keep your money. Is this legal, no. If you are going to earn money off the system, you have to pay the system. You are welcome to pay as absolutely little as the book say, no penny less.
You are welcome to forfeit your citizenship and move to another country. That will absolve you of your US tax responsibility. Not many countries have this ability. Heck, you can even earn your salary in another country, keep your citizenship, and avoid much of the taxes.
As for not supporting foreign wars or municipal boondoggles; no you did. Welcome to Democracy or semi-Democracy. Its a compromise based system, meaning no one is happy with the result. The parts of the deal you don't like... you are still responsible for. You don't have dictators in this country, you don't have royal families, it isn't a colony or some territory; its a system run by representatives of the citizenship. SO each and everyone (including myself) are responsible for the good and the bad.... contrary to what both political parties what you to think. There is no one else to blame or take credit for but ourselves.
Both aim bots and xray are really old problems. Counter Strike solved them 15 years ago.
I don't remember Aim Bot anti-cheat very well, but the destination point (head) was given jitter so that your Aim Bot shook and you had a small but significant chance of missing.
XRay, the server only gives you the data of those that you could see. Additionally it determined if the bullet trajectory was valid based on point, direction, & velocity of initial firing. They ended up being able to have partially penetrable walls and boxes. Even if the user had XRay, you would be invisible behind the box. But if he fired, the box would protect you against a submachine gun, but not against an AWP.
Additional protections include providing a mini virtual environment that checks all game files for tampering. If anything didn't add up, the server wouldn't connect.
All of the above and similar stuff still allowed some people to cheat. So the perfect anti-cheat... in game voting. This was very simple, since killed off people could observe live plays, people could initiate kick votes that kicked a player suspected of cheating. Of course good players got kicked too, but they were clearly playing against armatures and should have moved onto more competitive grounds.
The article's legal mess is basically the company offloading their development costs onto society rather than hire people with brains to deal with the real world.
OK... where to start. A lot of what you said about Bitcoin, is alrightish. Everything you said about the stock market is pretty much dead wrong.
Warren Buffet isn't a regular trader. He is a hybrid between a lender and trader. His funding doesn't come from purchasing the same shares as you or I would. He gets special control, walkout clauses, and schedules. He also has restrictions like not being able to do shareholder control, or having to hold the shares for X time (similar to CEOs). So he might give a company $9 million in funds, but he won't be able to sell them for 5 years or he can if the price goes below $X (many times even above $Y). He might give it based on the the company focusing in a specific market sector or putting it into R&D, etc. He might guarantee that he will provide the funding over the next 10 years on a $1 million per year basis but that the price can't fluctuate outside a certain window. Etc.
Mr Buffet doesn't do trading like we do. A elephant can't move like the mice in a glassware shop.
The vast majority of the institutions that act in the stock market are government/company pensions, retirement accounts, insurance accounts, escrows, and rich entities (ie: trusts, rich people/companies, estates, etc). If they played on buy low, sell high, they would just be stealing funds from each other. They aren't stupid, nor foolish to believe one will beat the others. If that's all the stock market is, they can stick to far more fun games (ie: commodities trading, futures, & currencies). These entities are also well regulated (so is Buffet), they aren't allowed to do pump & dump, nor invest widely in unregulated entities like Bitcoin (thou they can still plan regulated exposure).
This is why private unregulated hedge funds were and still are so popular. The majority are them are very successful but some get too big. Of course its a winner-loser game for them so losses are spectacular (ie: Madoff, Cohen, Rajaratnam, ...).
There is an inherent cost in maintaining bitcoin that does need to be funded. It isn't so small that the network can be maintained at any price point nor will its stable value sustain it. It needs to continue transactions at a good enough volume to justify its network. In this regard, Bitcoin is similar to ETFs but much more expensive to maintain and conduct transactions in.
Many ETFs have been dismantled for less reasons. But then again, Bitcoin doesn't have a central authority like ETFs to make an authoritarian decision. Its a consensus based network. Eventually its network will shrink as players no longer find it worth the effort. As players shrink it will exponentially shrink its value proposition. At some point, the futures market will drop them and it will go back to its unchecked speculation. This may raise another short bubble, but not like this one.
Finally, its network will live on charity, but at this point it would be very difficult to determine its value in Dollars. It is no longer worth the effort and not enough people care. Which makes it as good as dead. I think this will happen far before it can fall below the $100 point. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make it below $1000.
I really meant technology, but for the following:
-put up a big screen at each center that shows the number/percentage of times a candidate lied, told half truths, and truths.
-their tenure
-the top three things they stand for (1000 chars) and they can't change it per state/ballot.
-how many times they stood up for, didn't take part in, or caved on the prior
-public cameras that allow anyone online to see the voting area and counting.
All of the above has a QR code that points back to the official government website that all this is supposed to stream off of. So that anyone can check for tampering.
Also, all results are withheld from media, candidates, etc till they are ALL in. At which point the winner is stated and then the circus can have their way wasting everyone's time on analyzing the states. This way it provides a bit more confidence that all votes are equal. AND we don't make the elections a damn football game.
Right... the ENTIRE metoo movement is made up of people just like you describe. So let's dismiss the entire topic because YOU think it is much smaller than it appears.
Even if 75% of that tag is what you say, it is still worth the discussion as it gives voice to the 25% who had none before.
Also, murder has no statute of limitations, atleast in the US.
We aren't as Net backwards as you. I use anywhere from 300-600GB at home. And no, nothing illegal. I use cellular a lot too, up to ~4GB per month.
Maybe one of these decades the US will realize how piss poor the last mile is here compared to equivalent countries.
The broadband deployment definition was already pretty bad here and now it's no longer laughing matter, it's just sad.
I don't think anyone has much faith in the strength of political ideas. People don't even vote for "their party" here, they blindly vote against the "other guy's party". They rarely vote for the actual ideals & feasibility of the candidates nor hold them accountable. If it was the other way around, there would be more parties than just the three. The fact we lump "other" into "Independent" shows how messed up it is.
I think the US has a great political system when compared to other Democracies but in this area, we are far behind. In many other systems, the gridlock we see would result in government disbandment and re-elections! That rarely happens because those parties figure out how to compromise and work things out.
Because Technological solutions can not solve People problems. And it has no chance against political ones.
It has become a recent issue because of automation. We could have done this for more than a century. manually Just don't present the independent math guy with political affiliation as part of the data set. Automation, we could do for decades.
But what political group would want to lose that attribute as a weapon? So humans did it... along with all their biases. But when humans were doing it, they messed up enough that the results didn't follow intent. Not a big deal. Now with big data and computers, the intent has been programmed in on top of the population constraint. Its automated to give the current party the benefit.
Wider disclosure of a vulnerability means a greater chance that it's leaked to those who would exploit it for malicious purposes.
This has a very poor underlying assumption: White hats always know about exploits prior to Black hats. Considering the latter are far better funded, have better incentives, and don't disclose; I think the betting is that it is already used for malicious purposes.
Additionally, this is the information age, not the dead tree, secret squirrel, stamped "for your eyes only" days. In this age, does it really matter if 100 or 10000 people know a confidential piece of information? You only need ONE individual in that set to provide the information to malicious actors. Additionally, there are a multitude of incentives and multitude of avenues for sharing with little chance of getting caught.
Given the above, full disclosure is far better than limited disclosure.
Also, due to the nature of the BSD license, it's code is in a ton of software around the world. The assumption that it isn't widely used is wishful thinking of the unknown.
You would think there would be a mention of lasers somewhere in the post. It is Slashdot after all. Sharks, ice, and ... Come ON, it writes itself... how we have fallen.
They are not saying equal distance across all units like a train. Trains do not have units coming and going. Nor do detached units have a central authority setting their individual speeds.
You can have units at ...1,5,9,13... distance (there is no beginning nor end). And if a unit mergers after #1, it can become 1,3,5,9,13 => 1,3,6,9,13 => 1,3.5,6,10,13 => 1,3.5,6.25,10,13.5..., etc. (of course 1 would move forward too but did not for simplicitys sake).
With units coming and going, there would rarely be a state of equal distance among all. This method while allowing individual distance determination, decreases the distance each unit moves further away from the disturbance (front and back).
We all know that the backward compounding of a disturbance is what causes traffic jams. Which is what happens in a safest/buffer/minimum front distance based methods.
I remember coming across this solution 10 years ago as a simulation result, but I do not remember the application :/. But that is really nothing. If these guys have mathematically proven it, bravo! The applications go well beyond traffic.
Well, they are just saying that rather than minimum distances, safe distances, or buffers on the prior, equal front-back distance is a better model for throughput. Not that it will prevent traffic jams. And it is meant for autonomous cars.
A centrally managed system would probably be better but an anonymous car will not be able to determine that on its own.
They say that in the article, itâ(TM)s meant for autonomous cars.
It is year end. It makes sense that some of the long term holders (1yr+) sell off to get the lower tax rates. Others maybe splitting the profits between 2018 & 2019. A few of those two groups and then a ton of panicked sellers cashed out.
Also people probably needed the cash to buy gifts during the year end sales or pay off things.
I bet you some who read that were thinking of their cellular contracts rather than local elections.
Climate 'science' is essentially a religion because of how detached it is from the observed evidence.
Among scientists who study this all the time, you are in the severe minority here. Why should we think you are right and the majority from multiple backgrounds and disciplines are wrong?
Coming up with conclusions that fit the needs of politicians who want to impose taxes on carbon, of all the absurd things to tax, is contradictory to the scientific method.
You are mixing politics with science. The application of the latter by the former is rarely scientific. Usually more religious, customs, and emotional based. Politics has historically been a subset of religion.
But to counter, there is far far more funding, establishment, players, and status quo for proving Climate Change wrong than there is proving it right. Politically, if there was any concrete doubt in CC, we would not be having this discussion. It would have been settled and snuff out well before it hit the media.
He is a ex-felon and this having trouble getting a job. So he comes up with an idea to get back in jail, picking on a company who declined his resume a few times.
He did not seem to have hurt anyone, but only threatened them (with gun violence too). And he got 3 years worth of meals on the tax payers dime.
Mission accomplished?
He works for the CIA as a North Korean agent who the KGB thinks defected and then used to spy on the Brits. MI6 thinks he is a lost American tourist that can not seem to find his way out of their building.
On a side note, I hope he never goes to NK... this post might get him in a lot of trouble.
Side side note, queue all the govt AI systems that read this post and elevate his security clearance because it appears too low.
20 minutes is NOTHING compared to the US. My dad, a friend, and I have been to the ER once over the last 5 years.
-Dad: The forms took 30 minutes to fill out. We spent 6 hours going to different rooms getting checked out (4 tests). The nurses didn't know what test was already done and what he was waiting on. The only people who knew the status, was the front RECEPTIONISTS who were already busy accepting walkins. Half the testing stations asked & took down the same damn information over and over again. Everything was put into computers & tablets with complex forms. Every single thing was scanned in followed by scanning his wrist band.
-Friend: Had a bad bike fall & minor cut that wouldn't stop bleeding. They checked him all in within 30 minutes. Bandaged him up and put cold press on it while he was waiting for stitches. After waiting 2 hours on a bed in a cold hallway, he stopped one of the nurses to get an ETA. Another hour later, he just left and went to another ER further away where they fixed him up in 2 hours. He still got a huge bill from the first ER that equated to $250/hour.
-Me: I had a nose bleed that wouldn't stop. Clinic said to go to ER. I knew one a bit further away but was rarely packed. Took 30 minutes to get a bed. There were maybe two other patients. Got pretty good service compared to most places. Released me after IVs and 4 hours of monitoring and a small prescription. Bill was roughly $300/hour. The clinic was $155 for the entire checkup.
ER is very fast if you have a life threatening emergency. But once you are stable (ie: still have that bullet in you), you might as well use your cell to find a doctor who will take care of you and walk out. The ER will just forget about you.
And honestly, it is not the ER's fault. I don't blame them. All the specialists I saw, knew exactly what they were doing. They knew the machines, and got people out very quickly. It was the receiving, discharge, and waiting overhead between tests that was unbearable. They are just busy. Everything in the US gets sent to ER. None of the above would need an ER in other countries. About 1/3 of what clinics do can be done at home via first aid. After the xrays and basic prescription stuff, they pretty much tell you to go to ER unless you can wait 1-2 weeks for a doctor or a referral to go to a specialist in 2-4 weeks.
And all the IT systems seemed geared toward billing. Or more accurately, provide all the reasoning, time, cost, and usage of everything so that the evidence speaks for itself when someone disputes. Its a colossal waste of resources. It hardly seems to help the doctors or nurses. They just tab or scroll over to the memo section and see the comments & actions taken thus far and add their own.
It is mostly cofinanced. According wikipedia, 28% is fed, 29% is pharma, 19% is biotech. The rest is public, private, & charity mix.
Then you have to consider that almost all research is tax deductible which with a conservative 20% tax rate, thatâ(TM)s another 9% coming from fed & local govt.
Then there is the patent aspect that is given to the company cosponsoring. Which pretty much privatizes the benefits of said research.
Also companies rarely fund âoegood for societyâ research. Normally it is what ever has the highest return. The govt has to âoeencourageâ via cofunding and patent grants, to research rare or common but low return diseases (ie: malaria).
Finally, the infrastructure to support the research is usually on the govt dime. Such as CDC & WHO maintaining stock of the most hazardous substances & diseases.
So in the US, there is significant public funding but ROI seems almost entirely private.
excessive regulation, excessive education requirements, an artificially limited supply of practitioners, mandatory insurance that encourages excessive billing
This is very misleading and also wrong. The regulations and education requirements do bring up the price of healthcare but account for a very small part of the increase. Do you honestly think regulations are why those general drug makers are increasing prices by 500% in a short time?
As for excessive billing... have you ever been billed for healthcare? Regulations have little to do if it. An uninsured person will get billed 4-5x the rate of an In Network insured patient. This was true before Obamacare. The insurance companies negotiated low rates but the end effect was to just raise prices on those without insurance.... the ones who can not afford the lower rate in the first place.
Additionally billing for a overnight stay at a hospital is horrendous. No one can give you an estimate for costs without a 20% margin! They can give you a rough likely price but say you could see additional billings from other providers?!? You will get a heavily discounted bill for the room that you do not need to pay until the insurance partially covers it. Then the rest is on you. And that might be corrected again later ending in a credit or additional billing.
Of course that is just the hospital. You came in through ER, another bill. Did the hospital use an external anesthesiologist, another bill. Did they use an external lab, another bill. Did you use an ambulance, another bill. Did your primary care physician come to check on you, another bill. Did a specialist come to check on you, another bill. Did they order special medication for you, another bill.
Each of these bills go through the back and forth discount, partial payment , review, adjustment, invoice, etc process. Many times people do not know their bill for 3-5 months! None of this is regulations based. Because the system charges those who can not pay more, there is a lot of unpaid bills. No one wants to be the bill collector and aggregate/bundle the costs. So each spends resources billing and negotiating their part of the equation.
Most readers are thinking that they do not see this complexity. You have the standard old plan of paying just the deductible. But this all happens in the background even for you and is handled by a complex network of healthcare payers and payees. People with HSAs will see a little behind the curtain. Those without proper insurance will see more and also deal with debt collectors who might contact them 6-12 months after service!
That horrible inefficient system is further burdened by arcane IT systems. Each provider has different ways to collect. Some only accept bank draft, others mailed/called CC info, others will have a website with disfunctional forms, etc. The reference that they provided you to tie back to the service is the cryptic procedure/medicine, its provider ID code, your name, date of procedure, billing company name, date of bill. That is it, good luck keeping track of all the bills if you visit an ER 2x in one year.
All these costs bundle into the cost of healthcare. And there is no incentive to reduce the complexity because you, the patient, do not get to choose the service nor provider nor know the bill up front. You are a captive customer.
Imagine going into a Kroger (grocery store) and walking out, not getting billed. Then a month later the bill arrives. Then another for each of the non-Kroger brands you bought. And you get a 70% discount if you are a member. No other industry is this absolutely stupid in IT and billing.
The industry has created a massive price distortion all by itself over the last 40 years. Congress knew about it and has been incompetent it addressing it for that long! Regulations have not really helped, but they are hardly a quarter of the pie. Insurance for all partially helps because you do not bill people for what they can not pay and avoid the resource wastage of that whole process!
You would be surprised how many people do not know or do not care to. I am talking about IT people, not Mom & Pop. The customer âoeJust wants it working!â Is the excuse. Other times people just do not want the authentication to be a factor in troubleshooting and forget to close access afterward.
Many times, it is a bit of both. And the amount these people get paid (75k+), they should be fired for negligence. I once had to tell a client that they left their Sharepoint with sensitive data open to everyone in the world! They thought âoeeveryoneâ was just their one small office worth of sales people. This is an office with 2-3 IT people supporting it. And then they wondered why the company took the servers to the data center. But those 3 people still work at that office!