On the other hand, assume that over your life time you pay out $500,000 in health insurance coverage in exchange for full coverage. Now assume you have some operation that you need that costs $300,000. Do you have $300,000 right now to pay for it? or is that $100/month suddenly worth the convenience?
Not to defend the insurance companies, but their business model relies more heavily on the law of large numbers (no pun intended) than it does on "not providing the services promised". The true evil of insurance companies are the special discount deals they make with healthcare providers. Without insurance, you don't get these discounted prices because they are raising prices to make sure the "discounts" don't go too low. If the US government wants to make a real impact on healthcare cost without socialized medicine, they should outlaw these special deals.
That is what I concluded. Sure I can do several things at once. In certain instances where I have to wait on something for a few minutes I can crank away at something else. But by and large I found that if I can focus on one thing at a time, I get more done. I don't need things like Ritalin anymore because I became obsessive-compulsive (not quite OCD though) enough to not need it. Despite being in a cubical at work, I am lucky enough to be located back in a quite nearly deserted corner of the building. So I can take full advantage of the lack of distractions to concentrate on one thing at a time.
Am I better at multi-tasking than the average person? Probably. But the truth still stands that multi-tasking is still not the way to maximum efficiency even for those of us with ADD.
The whole post is a joke. I have ADD, and I'm terrible at multi-tasking. I used to think I was good at it and to the casual observer, I probably appear to be good at it. But I have realized that the less I multitask, the more I actually get done. I came to this realization when I noticed that I couldn't remember a damn thing I read when there is any fair amount of background noise.
Most book stores I've been in have a poor selection of such material. Look for Getting Started in Electronics by Forest Mims and then look for Practical Electronics for Inventors. For components, just kit yourself out as needed from online supplies (Mouser, Digikey, Jameco, Newark, etc).
Or when students are tired of teachers taking an entire semester to teach something that should have taken a single month, they get frustrated or bored and the transfer of knowledge fails.
The solution is this. When your kid gets to the point of not being challenged, have them quit highschool, get a GED and go to community college for a while. You'll have a good shot at scholarships for being so young, the highschool gets wacked by No Child Left Behind for having a drop-out, and your son/daughter will be getting a decent education. It's a win all around. I can't think of anything that I learned after 9th grade that I couldn't have learned in college.
There are many many places where one group sets a strategy, and another sets the tactics. How do you think upper management works? We have a lot of good officers who know tactics of modern warfare far better than I could ever hope to, so why should I bother making a fool of myself by making rediculous suggestions that I know little about. Strategy is an easier to understand game since studying history does well to suggest what works and what doesn't. The effectiveness of strategy changes very little over the centuries, unlike tactics.
"Make love not war" is all well and good, but it does little for the situation where war is neccessary.
You are confusing strategy with tactics. I am only saying that the strategy must be total war. What tactics should be used or allowed is a decision that it between the Generals of the military and our politicians.
Also, a note. We have not disarmed the Iraqi population, breaking one of the primary rules set out by von Clausewitz. If they were disarmed, it would be a lot easier to say "that guy has a gun, shoot his ass right now."
Of course, a key problem is man power. Our forces are spread so thin across the world that We can't go in and occupy every city, inspect every house and vehicle, and search every man, woman, and child.
War isn't pretty. That's why you should never do it for any reason other than defense, and you had better damn well be prepared for the fact that you are going to make innocent civilians suffer greatly in your efforts to win.
Refer to Germany, Italy, Austria, and yes even Japan in WWII. Note that only one of those required nukes. These were all countries that had a populace that largely did not want what the Axis was giving them, but had enough fanatics to keep it going. Sound familiar?
Should we always keep out of other people's countries? When we hear of terrible atrocities being committed by armed forces against innocent people? Yes.
The problem is that we should never go to war to bring people freedom. No one is going to like it. When you do need to go to war, the only strategy of war that should ever be waged is total war. The only way success in war can actually be achieved is by the complete submission of the enemy population (which also includes those not hostile). It's ugly and messy, but that's war. The idea that we're going to "bring freedom" to a region that is so hostile towards us is rediculous.
Most of those deaths occured in the Russian Gulags. Approximately 600,000 Axis POWs died in Russia (Source from http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm with the estimate being largely based on Richard Overy's "Russia's War"). I'm not saying that the Brits and the GIs were perfect. Most deaths under them though likely occured due to succuming to battle injury or being killed before making it to POW camps by stressed soldiers.
Source? I know a former German POW in the US. He claims to have been treated well. I also know one who survived being a POW in Russia. His stories are nightmare inducing.
The claims to Soviet labor camps doesn't surprise me. There was an extreme mortality rate in the gulags and the treatment of POWs was almost on par with the treatment of Jews in the Nazi concentration camps (the gulags only lacked the systematic execution).
The point here is that this Senator claims we are giving al Qaida members more legal rights than we gave German POWs in WWII. He ignores the fact that German POWs were treated very well, while we keep these al Qaida members locked in prison cells with occasional water boarding.
FTA: "The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. German POWs in WWII were treated very well by us as we followed the Geneva Convention almost to an extreme. They lived in large camps and weren't locked up in prison cells so long as they behaved.
Just put your own copyrighted nude pictures on the desktop. When they copy them, sue them for copyright infringement following RIAA standards of damages.
I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of "free" when referring to the social condition of America. It has nothing to do with a monetary value and everything to do with the ability to not have interference from the government in your everyday life. America has also lost a lot of it's "freedom". You should also consider that European nations typically have censorship laws and do not highly prize free speech (check out all the places where it's illegal to publish Mein Kampf). I think both America and Europe can learn a lot from each other. Now if we could just make sure they don't learn the wrong things.
The labor unions were only not a threat to their existence because they were a direct part of the nazi government. A single union under control of a single party (even a single person). Actually no. The labor unions were mostly Marxist and thus at odds with the Nazi party. They were made not a threat by the SA beating them into submission.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, assume that over your life time you pay out $500,000 in health insurance coverage in exchange for full coverage. Now assume you have some operation that you need that costs $300,000. Do you have $300,000 right now to pay for it? or is that $100/month suddenly worth the convenience?
Not to defend the insurance companies, but their business model relies more heavily on the law of large numbers (no pun intended) than it does on "not providing the services promised". The true evil of insurance companies are the special discount deals they make with healthcare providers. Without insurance, you don't get these discounted prices because they are raising prices to make sure the "discounts" don't go too low. If the US government wants to make a real impact on healthcare cost without socialized medicine, they should outlaw these special deals.
That is what I concluded. Sure I can do several things at once. In certain instances where I have to wait on something for a few minutes I can crank away at something else. But by and large I found that if I can focus on one thing at a time, I get more done. I don't need things like Ritalin anymore because I became obsessive-compulsive (not quite OCD though) enough to not need it. Despite being in a cubical at work, I am lucky enough to be located back in a quite nearly deserted corner of the building. So I can take full advantage of the lack of distractions to concentrate on one thing at a time.
Am I better at multi-tasking than the average person? Probably. But the truth still stands that multi-tasking is still not the way to maximum efficiency even for those of us with ADD.
I think he's down there screaming up at us.
The whole post is a joke. I have ADD, and I'm terrible at multi-tasking. I used to think I was good at it and to the casual observer, I probably appear to be good at it. But I have realized that the less I multitask, the more I actually get done. I came to this realization when I noticed that I couldn't remember a damn thing I read when there is any fair amount of background noise.
Most book stores I've been in have a poor selection of such material. Look for Getting Started in Electronics by Forest Mims and then look for Practical Electronics for Inventors. For components, just kit yourself out as needed from online supplies (Mouser, Digikey, Jameco, Newark, etc).
Or when students are tired of teachers taking an entire semester to teach something that should have taken a single month, they get frustrated or bored and the transfer of knowledge fails.
The solution is this. When your kid gets to the point of not being challenged, have them quit highschool, get a GED and go to community college for a while. You'll have a good shot at scholarships for being so young, the highschool gets wacked by No Child Left Behind for having a drop-out, and your son/daughter will be getting a decent education. It's a win all around. I can't think of anything that I learned after 9th grade that I couldn't have learned in college.
There are many many places where one group sets a strategy, and another sets the tactics. How do you think upper management works? We have a lot of good officers who know tactics of modern warfare far better than I could ever hope to, so why should I bother making a fool of myself by making rediculous suggestions that I know little about. Strategy is an easier to understand game since studying history does well to suggest what works and what doesn't. The effectiveness of strategy changes very little over the centuries, unlike tactics.
"Make love not war" is all well and good, but it does little for the situation where war is neccessary.
You are confusing strategy with tactics. I am only saying that the strategy must be total war. What tactics should be used or allowed is a decision that it between the Generals of the military and our politicians.
Also, a note. We have not disarmed the Iraqi population, breaking one of the primary rules set out by von Clausewitz. If they were disarmed, it would be a lot easier to say "that guy has a gun, shoot his ass right now."
Of course, a key problem is man power. Our forces are spread so thin across the world that We can't go in and occupy every city, inspect every house and vehicle, and search every man, woman, and child.
War isn't pretty. That's why you should never do it for any reason other than defense, and you had better damn well be prepared for the fact that you are going to make innocent civilians suffer greatly in your efforts to win.
Refer to Germany, Italy, Austria, and yes even Japan in WWII. Note that only one of those required nukes. These were all countries that had a populace that largely did not want what the Axis was giving them, but had enough fanatics to keep it going. Sound familiar?
The problem is that we should never go to war to bring people freedom. No one is going to like it. When you do need to go to war, the only strategy of war that should ever be waged is total war. The only way success in war can actually be achieved is by the complete submission of the enemy population (which also includes those not hostile). It's ugly and messy, but that's war. The idea that we're going to "bring freedom" to a region that is so hostile towards us is rediculous.
Most of those deaths occured in the Russian Gulags. Approximately 600,000 Axis POWs died in Russia (Source from http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm with the estimate being largely based on Richard Overy's "Russia's War"). I'm not saying that the Brits and the GIs were perfect. Most deaths under them though likely occured due to succuming to battle injury or being killed before making it to POW camps by stressed soldiers.
Source? I know a former German POW in the US. He claims to have been treated well. I also know one who survived being a POW in Russia. His stories are nightmare inducing.
The claims to Soviet labor camps doesn't surprise me. There was an extreme mortality rate in the gulags and the treatment of POWs was almost on par with the treatment of Jews in the Nazi concentration camps (the gulags only lacked the systematic execution).
So the solution is, if we know they are our enemy, we treat them well (Germans in WWII), but if we arn't sure, we treat them like crap until we are?
The point here is that this Senator claims we are giving al Qaida members more legal rights than we gave German POWs in WWII. He ignores the fact that German POWs were treated very well, while we keep these al Qaida members locked in prison cells with occasional water boarding.
I am indeed saddened that someone who is a Colonel in our military is so uninformed about his own military history.
Just put your own copyrighted nude pictures on the desktop. When they copy them, sue them for copyright infringement following RIAA standards of damages.
Considering that two underage teens were prosecuted for statutory rape for having sex with eachother, I don't think that is enough to get it to stop.
I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of "free" when referring to the social condition of America. It has nothing to do with a monetary value and everything to do with the ability to not have interference from the government in your everyday life. America has also lost a lot of it's "freedom". You should also consider that European nations typically have censorship laws and do not highly prize free speech (check out all the places where it's illegal to publish Mein Kampf). I think both America and Europe can learn a lot from each other. Now if we could just make sure they don't learn the wrong things.