Obvious privacy issues aside, what is your experience with paid services? I've only used free accounts on Gmail and Hotmail (other than employer accounts and ISP accounts when I was on dialup).
And specifically how do they alleviate the problems described in the post?
I feel like someone in Microsoft is a fan of this kind of thing, based on how snap view works in Windows 8. Unfortunately it's still not where I'd like it, and particularly it doesn't allow multiple desktops on the same display (just multiple metro apps and one desktop).
I wish there were a TWM for Windows that actually makes Windows behave the same as having multiple monitors.
For that matter, I'm curious if there is a display "driver" that sits on top of the actual display driver, which would essentially tell Windows it has multiple smaller displays but in reality it just tiles them into one larger display.
I get what you are saying but even these examples assume that the engineers haven't thought of such situations. Self-driving cars are going to be tested in a crazy number of conditions over the course of around 2 decades before drivers will be allowed to completely take their attention away. Every drive could be a test case for future car AIs to learn from.
We're headed down the freeway. Up ahead I see some teenagers standing on an overpass holding something large and watching cars pass underneath. I recognize a potential dropped rock and change lanes to get away from it. Will the computer do that?
If the car is always looking for and tracking projectiles, the car will only need to avoid a projectile if and when it exists. And the car wouldn't drive side-by-side with other cars, and would know at all times which lanes are open and what evasive actions are available (including stopping, of course, which is often a much better option when compared with humans getting surprised and swerving needlessly).
And the car could instantly transmit a warning to nearby cars that a hazard exists, and perhaps once all cars are self-driving, they could even coordinate such evasive actions.
I'm almost home. I see the neighbor kid playing basketball in his driveway. He shoots. He misses. I know as soon as he misses that there is a good chance the ball will roll out into the street, and knowing how oblivious the neighbor kid is I can expect him to follow. Will the computer know this? In fact, I see the kid running towards the street, but he is hidden behind a parked van and will not actually be visible in the street until he's in the street directly in front of me. Will the car track him all the way from the upper end of his driveway?
Why would the car be programmed to assume that the projectile (the kid) has stopped simply because something now obscures the view? For that matter, it could have many different types of sensors on all corners, bottom and top, which would give it much more information than our two human eyes that are in one location. It could possibly see the kid's feet under the parked van.
I'm passing an intersection and there are two people standing on the corner. They are in a position where they might step into the crosswalk. Can the computer read those people's body language to predict that they will or won't step off the sidewalk in front of me?
If the automated car can determine that people or animals are near its driving path, why would it drive at a high rate of speed without giving adequate space? It should either slow down or provide more space.
The Constitution also doesn't state that the government has the power to force citizens to purchase unwanted health insurance from private entities, but it seems that this Court doesn't believe the States or the people reserve that power.
Instead of open voting, I'd rather each vote remain anonymous but be tallied by multiple organizations that are unaffiliated with the government (including political parties). Every vote that gets cast at a precinct would be counted by at least two, but possibly more, of these organizations.
If there is ever a disagreement between the numbers at a precinct, and the total disagreement across all precincts could determine the outcome of the election, each precinct with disagreements is automatically recounted publicly.
I don't understand why that is such a big deal anyway. They are going to spam me with ads one way or the other; at least if I find value in the product or service being advertised, it's less of a waste of my time and perhaps it's even a valuable proposition.
But sure... let's give as much data to big brother as possible. I mean, there is absolutely nothing that a government could ever interpret--or misinterpret--from your data that could do you harm, right?
Yep, that's about the most insensitive thing anyone can say to an infertile couple. But that must be easy since you have kids (yep, I read your profile). It must feel good not to have miscarriages or anything that prevented your family from existing.
Please, tell me again how I should give up on the thing that I want more than life itself.
And personally, if your infertility is the result of a medical condition then I think that insurance should absolutely cover you (as long as you don't already have five kids, you know? Be sensible)
I have ZERO kids, but thanks for assuming that all of us infertiles have tons of kids but want more to live off the government. We've been trying for five years with no success.
Just out of curiosity, do you think there are more people seeking help with infertility or women seeking contraception?
1 out of 9 women are infertile and must resort to either tens of thousands of dollars worth of procedures, or tens of thousands of dollars for adoption, or both. Meanwhile, 100% of people who choose to get contraception in order to have worry-free sex can choose to not have sex, absolutely for free.
Maybe it's better that you not reproduce after all.
Maybe it's better that you die of horrible painful cancer for decades that can't be helped by any medicine.
Yeah, now you know how I feel about your asswad comment.
The problem isn't what the employer chooses to cover. It's that the employer has a choice at all in coverage.
My employer's insurance doesn't cover X. To get coverage for X (which would perhaps cause costs to rise 1%), I have to go to the private market. I can't take my employer's subsidy with me, and the private market costs four times what my group plan costs. And it covers less otherwise, but hey, I have X covered!
Employer collusion with insurance corporations should be banned. Let me take my employer's subsidy and choose the insurance that's right for me.
I find drones "repugnant". In fact, my religious beliefs demand that I not participate or support such indiscriminate killing.
Do I get to take a pro-rated reduction in the amount of taxes I pay so I don't have to violate my faith and support this repugnant activity?
Maybe you should be able to.
Second is that the religious organization or corporation or employer in question is not really paying for the insurance. It's part of the compensation of the employee. That means when the insurance is purchased, it is done so with money that has been earned by the employee. There is no direct payment for birth control or any of the stuff that the Church finds icky. Unless you think those benefits are provided out of the goodness of the hearts of the organizations. No, they do it as part of the compensation package. They're not buying health insurance for anyone who doesn't work there.
But why contraception? Out of all the things to force free coverage on, this is one of the most ridiculous.
Meanwhile, where I live and who I'm employed with, my wife and I can barely get anything covered for infertility. We want a child. I have a good job and the means to provide for the child, and our house and family are very stable. But nobody is forcing my employer to pay for infertility coverage. I can't "plan" for it like I could for the need of contraception (like, you know, keeping my penis out of a vagina when I'm not prepared in life to raise a child).
This is just another thing that's wrong with our nation. If you can't pay for yourself, just pop out a few kids and the government will gladly hand you a check to make ends meet. Meanwhile, loving parents who can't have kids without high-cost procedures--which almost raise your chances to the level of "normal" people--well, they're screwed because insurance doesn't cover that. And then while the government looks at us and laughs as they take our direct tax money to give to the highly fertile, they then screw us over in the private sector by forcing us to pay for contraceptives to keep people from getting pregnant, something we wouldn't use for that purpose EVER. Lovely.
You know what, screw you. I've paid $30K out-of-pocket this year for medical procedures while my insurance deductibles and coinsurance rates have skyrocketed (even though they barely pay for anything), and after all of this it still hasn't worked and adoption will cost even more than that if it comes to it. While you sit back in your nice Internet chair and complain that the government isn't forcing insurance to cover something that people have a direct choice in. Because you evidently think religious beliefs are never to be respected.
We also need to stop the monopolistic stranglehold that we get with employers dictating who we contract our health insurance with. It has taken choice out of the equation for many.
If you want something particular covered and it doesn't happen to be covered in your group plan, you have to pay full price on the private market. Meanwhile your employer pockets the money they would otherwise be using to subsidize your group plan membership.
That is why I have had to pay over $30,000 out of pocket this year, not including premiums. And that unfortunately is pocket change compared to some conditions.
Does my employer subsidize my car insurance? My house insurance? Of course not. I pay those out of the money I take home. It should be the same with medical insurance, especially now that by penalty of law everyone must have health insurance.
My company is one of those 10 big-name federal contractors with CMMI 5 teams, but for this certification period we have decided to switch to CMMI level 3. There were essentially no government groups that care about CMMI 5 anymore, and they told us that even if we did comply with CMMI level 5, they weren't paying extra for it.
My point is, what does this discussion have to do with my post? We aren't talking about the American political/election system. I asked for "a credible source that shows that 'half of' the federal government is 'actively trying to sabotage' true emergency care (involving loss of life or limb) 'for idealogical reasons'."
Ending racism It's culturalism, not racism. Whether you are black white or asian, if you do not "act" Japanese they look down on you. However if you abide by the cultural norms that Japanese typically abide by, no one will even think twice. Of course there are some groups that organize around racist ideals, but judging the entire country based on these groups would be like judging the US for allowing the KKK to exist.
I'd say with just a few exceptions (the KKK being a notable one), most racism is culturalism in reality.
In other words, when I look down on people who suck the government teat dry, and teach their children to do so instead of attempting to make something of their lives, it's not racist unless I only look down on (say) black people who do so. I personally look down on any such person regardless of race.
And it never fails that someone will say, "Of course that's racist... only [insert color of person here]s do that!". Pot, meet kettle.
Adding $100 to circulation makes little difference, because there is over 10 billion times that amount of currency in circulation. So you would expect, of course, prices to go up by around one ten-billionth, much less than noticeable.
The problem is if the government decides to manufacture tons of money. Let's go high for the sake of making a point, say $500 million trillion. So now the government can pay all its bills and then give everyone a billion dollars and we're all happy and rich, right?
Well, if I'm rich, I'm not going to work any more. I don't need no stinkin' job. I'm going to take my billions and grab a few mansions and some awesome cars and tech and maybe an island, right after I get my last Big Mac at Mickey D's.
I pull up to the drive-thru, but nobody is there. Oh, wait, everyone's a billionnaire and doesn't need to work. But who's going to satisfy my cravings for two pieces of meat in thick buns with secret sauce? And then it dawns on me... if I can't get a Big Mac, I can't get a gourmet meal. I can't go into a Best Buy. I can't find a realtor to sell me those mansions. Crap, well this sucks.
But surely everyone has a price, right? I have a lot of money, someone will make me a Big Mac for a million dollars, I'm sure of it. Well, ok, someone takes me up on the offer. And I suppose someone will take time away from their rich lives to be my realtor for 100 million dollars. And the guys down at the local TV store will work for a few million an hour. And it turns out, my billions are draining quickly this way... I guess I need to go back to work, so long as I can make a few million an hour myself.
This is hyperinflation. This is what happens when the government adds money to the economy. Of course, this isn't all that great. Now the $50,000 savings account our family has been working our lives toward is practically worthless, and those who have saved nothing in life, or haven't even attempted to find a job, have as much as we do.
So we can't just pump hundreds of trillions into the economy. If and when the decision is made to manufacture more currency, it will be in much smaller amounts. But the same economic principles hold, just in proportion to the total amount of money in circulation.
Please cite a credible source that shows that "half of" the federal government is "actively trying to sabotage" true emergency care (involving loss of life or limb) "for idealogical reasons".
I'm serious, I would like to know. I understand that there are opposing viewpoints in how to treat non-emergency conditions, including conditions such as cancer that can eventually lead to emergency care needs. But I don't know of a politician who has stated that they are against treating direct and imminent threats to life or limb.
Put another way, if every company took Netflix approach that only the top 10% are worthy of a job, what do the other 90% do to eat?
If every company does this, then those top 10% could choose to work wherever they wanted. The companies would compete for those workers by offering competitive salaries, benefits, and working conditions. The companies would still need to hire plenty more people, so of course not just the top 10% would be offered jobs.
The better companies will get the better employees and the worst will get the worst. This gives both potential employers and potential employees the incentive to become better.
The end result: better employers, better employees.
Anyone selling a device . . . demanding the web the way they want it, is someone you should immediately run away from
Agreed.
Anyone selling a device that can't handle the web as it is . . . is someone you should immediately run away from
Disagree somewhat. Making a site that fits the very large number of smaller devices* is an acceptable burden on the site developer. I sure hope within a few years, responsive UI design is as common as the idea of web applications.
* not including smart watches or smart glass... at least, yet
This program, 215, has the ability to stop the next 9/11 and if you added emails in there it would make it even more effective. Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Obvious privacy issues aside, what is your experience with paid services? I've only used free accounts on Gmail and Hotmail (other than employer accounts and ISP accounts when I was on dialup).
And specifically how do they alleviate the problems described in the post?
I feel like someone in Microsoft is a fan of this kind of thing, based on how snap view works in Windows 8. Unfortunately it's still not where I'd like it, and particularly it doesn't allow multiple desktops on the same display (just multiple metro apps and one desktop).
I wish there were a TWM for Windows that actually makes Windows behave the same as having multiple monitors.
For that matter, I'm curious if there is a display "driver" that sits on top of the actual display driver, which would essentially tell Windows it has multiple smaller displays but in reality it just tiles them into one larger display.
I get what you are saying but even these examples assume that the engineers haven't thought of such situations. Self-driving cars are going to be tested in a crazy number of conditions over the course of around 2 decades before drivers will be allowed to completely take their attention away. Every drive could be a test case for future car AIs to learn from.
We're headed down the freeway. Up ahead I see some teenagers standing on an overpass holding something large and watching cars pass underneath. I recognize a potential dropped rock and change lanes to get away from it. Will the computer do that?
If the car is always looking for and tracking projectiles, the car will only need to avoid a projectile if and when it exists. And the car wouldn't drive side-by-side with other cars, and would know at all times which lanes are open and what evasive actions are available (including stopping, of course, which is often a much better option when compared with humans getting surprised and swerving needlessly).
And the car could instantly transmit a warning to nearby cars that a hazard exists, and perhaps once all cars are self-driving, they could even coordinate such evasive actions.
I'm almost home. I see the neighbor kid playing basketball in his driveway. He shoots. He misses. I know as soon as he misses that there is a good chance the ball will roll out into the street, and knowing how oblivious the neighbor kid is I can expect him to follow. Will the computer know this? In fact, I see the kid running towards the street, but he is hidden behind a parked van and will not actually be visible in the street until he's in the street directly in front of me. Will the car track him all the way from the upper end of his driveway?
Why would the car be programmed to assume that the projectile (the kid) has stopped simply because something now obscures the view? For that matter, it could have many different types of sensors on all corners, bottom and top, which would give it much more information than our two human eyes that are in one location. It could possibly see the kid's feet under the parked van.
I'm passing an intersection and there are two people standing on the corner. They are in a position where they might step into the crosswalk. Can the computer read those people's body language to predict that they will or won't step off the sidewalk in front of me?
If the automated car can determine that people or animals are near its driving path, why would it drive at a high rate of speed without giving adequate space? It should either slow down or provide more space.
The Constitution also doesn't state that the government has the power to force citizens to purchase unwanted health insurance from private entities, but it seems that this Court doesn't believe the States or the people reserve that power.
Instead of open voting, I'd rather each vote remain anonymous but be tallied by multiple organizations that are unaffiliated with the government (including political parties). Every vote that gets cast at a precinct would be counted by at least two, but possibly more, of these organizations.
If there is ever a disagreement between the numbers at a precinct, and the total disagreement across all precincts could determine the outcome of the election, each precinct with disagreements is automatically recounted publicly.
I don't understand why that is such a big deal anyway. They are going to spam me with ads one way or the other; at least if I find value in the product or service being advertised, it's less of a waste of my time and perhaps it's even a valuable proposition.
But sure... let's give as much data to big brother as possible. I mean, there is absolutely nothing that a government could ever interpret--or misinterpret--from your data that could do you harm, right?
While you're at it trying to come up with the next thing you want to say to make you feel real good talking down to someone with a disease, I invite you to read the following: http://www.resolve.org/support-and-services/for-family--friends/infertility-etiquette.html
Maybe we can just skip all of that, ok?
Or, you know, just not have kids.
Yep, that's about the most insensitive thing anyone can say to an infertile couple. But that must be easy since you have kids (yep, I read your profile). It must feel good not to have miscarriages or anything that prevented your family from existing.
Please, tell me again how I should give up on the thing that I want more than life itself.
And personally, if your infertility is the result of a medical condition then I think that insurance should absolutely cover you (as long as you don't already have five kids, you know? Be sensible)
I have ZERO kids, but thanks for assuming that all of us infertiles have tons of kids but want more to live off the government. We've been trying for five years with no success.
Just out of curiosity, do you think there are more people seeking help with infertility or women seeking contraception?
1 out of 9 women are infertile and must resort to either tens of thousands of dollars worth of procedures, or tens of thousands of dollars for adoption, or both. Meanwhile, 100% of people who choose to get contraception in order to have worry-free sex can choose to not have sex, absolutely for free.
Maybe it's better that you not reproduce after all.
Maybe it's better that you die of horrible painful cancer for decades that can't be helped by any medicine.
Yeah, now you know how I feel about your asswad comment.
The problem isn't what the employer chooses to cover. It's that the employer has a choice at all in coverage.
My employer's insurance doesn't cover X. To get coverage for X (which would perhaps cause costs to rise 1%), I have to go to the private market. I can't take my employer's subsidy with me, and the private market costs four times what my group plan costs. And it covers less otherwise, but hey, I have X covered!
Employer collusion with insurance corporations should be banned. Let me take my employer's subsidy and choose the insurance that's right for me.
I find drones "repugnant". In fact, my religious beliefs demand that I not participate or support such indiscriminate killing.
Do I get to take a pro-rated reduction in the amount of taxes I pay so I don't have to violate my faith and support this repugnant activity?
Maybe you should be able to.
Second is that the religious organization or corporation or employer in question is not really paying for the insurance. It's part of the compensation of the employee. That means when the insurance is purchased, it is done so with money that has been earned by the employee. There is no direct payment for birth control or any of the stuff that the Church finds icky. Unless you think those benefits are provided out of the goodness of the hearts of the organizations. No, they do it as part of the compensation package. They're not buying health insurance for anyone who doesn't work there.
But why contraception? Out of all the things to force free coverage on, this is one of the most ridiculous.
Meanwhile, where I live and who I'm employed with, my wife and I can barely get anything covered for infertility. We want a child. I have a good job and the means to provide for the child, and our house and family are very stable. But nobody is forcing my employer to pay for infertility coverage. I can't "plan" for it like I could for the need of contraception (like, you know, keeping my penis out of a vagina when I'm not prepared in life to raise a child).
This is just another thing that's wrong with our nation. If you can't pay for yourself, just pop out a few kids and the government will gladly hand you a check to make ends meet. Meanwhile, loving parents who can't have kids without high-cost procedures--which almost raise your chances to the level of "normal" people--well, they're screwed because insurance doesn't cover that. And then while the government looks at us and laughs as they take our direct tax money to give to the highly fertile, they then screw us over in the private sector by forcing us to pay for contraceptives to keep people from getting pregnant, something we wouldn't use for that purpose EVER. Lovely.
You know what, screw you. I've paid $30K out-of-pocket this year for medical procedures while my insurance deductibles and coinsurance rates have skyrocketed (even though they barely pay for anything), and after all of this it still hasn't worked and adoption will cost even more than that if it comes to it. While you sit back in your nice Internet chair and complain that the government isn't forcing insurance to cover something that people have a direct choice in. Because you evidently think religious beliefs are never to be respected.
The only link I clicked on to get here was the "Read the 468 Comments" link.
The GP probably just did the same and commented that he was fed up with how this site is being run.
We also need to stop the monopolistic stranglehold that we get with employers dictating who we contract our health insurance with. It has taken choice out of the equation for many.
If you want something particular covered and it doesn't happen to be covered in your group plan, you have to pay full price on the private market. Meanwhile your employer pockets the money they would otherwise be using to subsidize your group plan membership.
That is why I have had to pay over $30,000 out of pocket this year, not including premiums. And that unfortunately is pocket change compared to some conditions.
Does my employer subsidize my car insurance? My house insurance? Of course not. I pay those out of the money I take home. It should be the same with medical insurance, especially now that by penalty of law everyone must have health insurance.
My company is one of those 10 big-name federal contractors with CMMI 5 teams, but for this certification period we have decided to switch to CMMI level 3. There were essentially no government groups that care about CMMI 5 anymore, and they told us that even if we did comply with CMMI level 5, they weren't paying extra for it.
My point is, what does this discussion have to do with my post? We aren't talking about the American political/election system. I asked for "a credible source that shows that 'half of' the federal government is 'actively trying to sabotage' true emergency care (involving loss of life or limb) 'for idealogical reasons'."
Funny, the only one ranting about "obvious falsities" is you.
Provide a reasonable counter-argument or go troll somewhere else.
Ending racism
It's culturalism, not racism. Whether you are black white or asian, if you do not "act" Japanese they look down on you. However if you abide by the cultural norms that Japanese typically abide by, no one will even think twice. Of course there are some groups that organize around racist ideals, but judging the entire country based on these groups would be like judging the US for allowing the KKK to exist.
I'd say with just a few exceptions (the KKK being a notable one), most racism is culturalism in reality.
In other words, when I look down on people who suck the government teat dry, and teach their children to do so instead of attempting to make something of their lives, it's not racist unless I only look down on (say) black people who do so. I personally look down on any such person regardless of race.
And it never fails that someone will say, "Of course that's racist... only [insert color of person here]s do that!". Pot, meet kettle.
Adding $100 to circulation makes little difference, because there is over 10 billion times that amount of currency in circulation. So you would expect, of course, prices to go up by around one ten-billionth, much less than noticeable.
The problem is if the government decides to manufacture tons of money. Let's go high for the sake of making a point, say $500 million trillion. So now the government can pay all its bills and then give everyone a billion dollars and we're all happy and rich, right?
Well, if I'm rich, I'm not going to work any more. I don't need no stinkin' job. I'm going to take my billions and grab a few mansions and some awesome cars and tech and maybe an island, right after I get my last Big Mac at Mickey D's.
I pull up to the drive-thru, but nobody is there. Oh, wait, everyone's a billionnaire and doesn't need to work. But who's going to satisfy my cravings for two pieces of meat in thick buns with secret sauce? And then it dawns on me... if I can't get a Big Mac, I can't get a gourmet meal. I can't go into a Best Buy. I can't find a realtor to sell me those mansions. Crap, well this sucks.
But surely everyone has a price, right? I have a lot of money, someone will make me a Big Mac for a million dollars, I'm sure of it. Well, ok, someone takes me up on the offer. And I suppose someone will take time away from their rich lives to be my realtor for 100 million dollars. And the guys down at the local TV store will work for a few million an hour. And it turns out, my billions are draining quickly this way... I guess I need to go back to work, so long as I can make a few million an hour myself.
This is hyperinflation. This is what happens when the government adds money to the economy. Of course, this isn't all that great. Now the $50,000 savings account our family has been working our lives toward is practically worthless, and those who have saved nothing in life, or haven't even attempted to find a job, have as much as we do.
So we can't just pump hundreds of trillions into the economy. If and when the decision is made to manufacture more currency, it will be in much smaller amounts. But the same economic principles hold, just in proportion to the total amount of money in circulation.
That's not an answer. And I'm pretty sure "federal government" is unambiguous in this context.
Please cite a credible source that shows that "half of" the federal government is "actively trying to sabotage" true emergency care (involving loss of life or limb) "for idealogical reasons".
I'm serious, I would like to know. I understand that there are opposing viewpoints in how to treat non-emergency conditions, including conditions such as cancer that can eventually lead to emergency care needs. But I don't know of a politician who has stated that they are against treating direct and imminent threats to life or limb.
Put another way, if every company took Netflix approach that only the top 10% are worthy of a job, what do the other 90% do to eat?
If every company does this, then those top 10% could choose to work wherever they wanted. The companies would compete for those workers by offering competitive salaries, benefits, and working conditions. The companies would still need to hire plenty more people, so of course not just the top 10% would be offered jobs.
The better companies will get the better employees and the worst will get the worst. This gives both potential employers and potential employees the incentive to become better.
The end result: better employers, better employees.
Well, HTTP is a stateless protocol. Technically every HTTP server (temporarily) forgets about the requestor between every request.
Anyone selling a device . . . demanding the web the way they want it, is someone you should immediately run away from
Agreed.
Anyone selling a device that can't handle the web as it is . . . is someone you should immediately run away from
Disagree somewhat. Making a site that fits the very large number of smaller devices* is an acceptable burden on the site developer. I sure hope within a few years, responsive UI design is as common as the idea of web applications.
* not including smart watches or smart glass... at least, yet
This program, 215, has the ability to stop the next 9/11 and if you added emails in there it would make it even more effective. Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened.
This is what the terrorists want.