wow. really? If someone steals my phone and hacks off my thumb, then one of the last things that i'm going to worry about is them going to a McDonalds and hold up a bloodied iPhone and dismembered finger up to the payment system to buy a cheeseburger.
Depends on how you interpret the semantics of their statement/recording.
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance" is vague. That may be their notification to me that they are recording the call, but it could also be interpreted as "you may record this call for quality assurance". Either interpretation fits the statement of "This call may be recorded for quality assurance".
I would think that, since they are effective monopolies in the areas they serve, that their franchise agreements don't let them just ditch customers that are troublemaking. I know this is up to each individual municipality, but I would hope there would be conditions in there on who they have to serve and the reasons that are allowed for them to not serve someone.
I would think that once both parties have agreed that the call is going to be recorded (via the automated message) that you would have no legal issues with recording the call yourself. Basically, as long as proper consent has been given to record the call (whether it's a 1-party state or 2-party state), then it doesn't matter who is doing the recording or where.
The ACA dictates that any health insurance plan must have an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 per year for an individual and $12,700 per year for a family. The MOST that multi-million dollar cancer treatment would cost anyone is $6,350. After that, 100% of the expenses are paid. Should a multimillion dollar cancer decide to strike the entire Octomom Clan, then the most that the Octoparents would be paying is $12,700.
Some plans have lower out-of-pocket maximums, but the highest that they can be and still be compliant with the ACA is $6,350. The out-of-pocket maximum also includes all deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or any other such similar payments for all covered medical expenses (including prescriptions, exams, tests, labs, etc.)
So once the cost of treatment on a 20% coinsurance plan has totaled about $30,000, then the patient isn't paying for anything else out of their own pocket.
correct. My home owners association is a legal corporation. But we make no moves to produce a profit. In fact, we actively work to reduce the member dues as much as possible to make sure we don't produce a profit or a loss.
This positioning of the screen will cause a lot of neck strain if used for extended periods. Your neck would then have to hold the weight of your head out over your chest. This will create a lot of strain on your neck muscles. You will start hating life after about a day or two.
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do. But, for the other 99.5% of the time, the self-driving car will make the best decisions and always be completely alert.
Self-Driving cars, I believe, have the ability to drastically reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents...one of the highest causes of death in the USA.
The fact that you are considering saving up to afford a pool is a statement of you being rich. Considering that an average in ground pool should cost about $25,000 to $50,000.
That's about the average annual salary for a person in the US...$50,000. That's more than the cost of a new luxury car...more than the cost of TWO new average cars... All for something that is a recreational activity and entirely unnecessary . On top of that, a recreational activity you can only enjoy for a few months of the year, in NJ if you're building an outdoor pool... and if it's an indoor pool, then the cost will be more than $50,000. If you are spending an amount of money equal to the average US salary on a recreational activity, then yes...you are indeed rich.
Most people, when they want to swim, will do so by going to a public municipal pool if you're poor, The Y if you're of average income, or if you're of above-average income, but still middle-class, you might have a private pool that is shared by your HOA or apartment complex. Anyone who owns a private in-ground pool, I would consider to be rich.
Now, there are many levels of rich...you are in the lower levels of rich, but you are indeed rich. The bands of rich are very large. Making about $150,000 per year puts you in to the lower-upper class. If you make $150,000 per year, you are in the top 5% of households. Make more than $250,000 per year? then you're in the top 1%. Given that you make $200k per year, you are probably in the top 2.5%. more than $250k per year puts you in the middle-upper class, and more than $1 million per year puts you in the upper-upper class.
Your comment touches on a video I once watched by a couple of gentlemen about Pascal's wager. Some of his arguments against Pascal's wager touch on what you brought up...there are such a huge number of different religions, almost all of them say "You must follow us. You must follow only us. If you do, you will get an infinitely happy and eternal afterlife. If you don't then you will go to hell (or whatever we call the bad place you go when you die) for all eternity."
He also includes all past religions that were (greek/roman/native american gods, etc.) and potential future religions. The possibilities are literally infinite.
Because it holds the key to millions of people's music that they paid for?
The iTunes Music Store hasn't sold a song with DRM since April of 2009. Anyone who ever bought any song, that was DRM'd off the iTunes store is able to download a free DRM-free replacement anytime by logging in to their iTunes account...so long as that music is still currently for sale on the iTunes store. Heck, that replacement copy will even be upgraded to 256kbps quality too! If the music is still not for sale on the iTunes store, then anyone can use the good-old-fashioned burn and re-rip method to remove the DRM.
Couldn't you have hired somebody at the lower rate you were looking for 6 months ago and trained them to be proficient by now?
You say you don't have the time to train them... but for the last 6 months, you've been short staffed, having to do the work that this new hire is supposed to be doing, and searching for and interviewing candidates? With all the time you've invested over the last 6 months in looking for the "perfect candidate" and the extra money you are paying to actually bring them on board, you likely could've just hired someone who is mostly qualified (at the lower rate) and then spend the time you would've spent reading resumes and interviewing candidates to actually train this person...then you have them at a lower rate, and they can help with some aspects of their job while they are being trained.
the likelihood of getting infected from unprotected heterosexual activity is near zero.
Incorrect.
The rate of actually acquiring an infection from an infected source by insertive anal (gay) intercourse is 6.5 in 10,000 exposures. The rate for Insertive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 5 in 10,000 exposures. The difference there...1.5 cases in 10,000 is pretty inconsequential.
It is different for the receptive partners. Receptive anal (gay) intercourse is 50 infections per 10,000 exposures. The rate for receptive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 10 per 10,000 exposures. Receptive gay sex is 5 times as likely to transmit the disease as receptive vaginal sex...but when it's 10 per 10,000 vs 50 per 10,000, it's still within the same order of magnitude.
The collaboration features will work on any device that has reasonable HTML 5 support as it is entirely browser based...including Mac, iDevices, Windows (IE, Chrome, Firefox), and a fair number of non-apple tablets...including the Surface. No license or account is needed for the collaborators.
The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective
I'd rather have a government bureaucrat, who (in theory) answers to the american voters, make the decision rather than an insurance company CEO, who answers to his shareholders and whose only job is to squeeze out the most profit.
Yes. You are correct. In a few places, that wouldn't be possible. But that is on the states that chose to reject those proposals, not on the Feds. The ACA provides for 100% of the cost of the medicaid expansion for 3 years, and then 90% of the cost of it forever.
It wouldn't surprise me if the increase in money flowing to the states because of the additional medicaid dollars actually completely offset the 10% of the cost to the states through additional state tax revenue.
I agree. My interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision on the ACA pretty much comes to the conclusion that congress could indeed do that.
However, you still have representative government. If a politician were to vote for a such a plan, then I bet they would get voted out pretty quick.
I never made the argument that it was right or that's how government should operate...I was just arguing that it was, in fact, constitutional as the sole power to levy taxes lies with The Congress since that's what the original comment was about.
If you have no income, then...congratulations, you will qualify for medicare and get healthcare for free...you won't pay a tax. Simply enroll and enjoy.
Like I said before... it's an argument of semantics... getting a tax break for buying insurance is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as having a tax penalty for not buying insurance. Either way, you are paying more in taxes for not buying health insurance...Just like you are paying more in taxes for not buying a mortgage...or paying more in taxes for not putting money in to your 401k...etc...etc...
To put it in terms a programmer can understand:
$tax=$tax+1000; if (hasInsurance($citizen)) { $tax=$tax-1000; }
is the same thing as
if (!hasInsurance($citizen)) {$tax=$tax+1000;}
Either way, if hasInsurance($citizen) is false, then the tax goes up by 1000.
Slashdot Mirror
so...SCOTCOM? Sounds like a nuclear missile satellite
wow. really? If someone steals my phone and hacks off my thumb, then one of the last things that i'm going to worry about is them going to a McDonalds and hold up a bloodied iPhone and dismembered finger up to the payment system to buy a cheeseburger.
I made the ICQ "uh oh" sound my text message sound a while back. Oh the memories...
Depends on how you interpret the semantics of their statement/recording.
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance" is vague. That may be their notification to me that they are recording the call, but it could also be interpreted as "you may record this call for quality assurance". Either interpretation fits the statement of "This call may be recorded for quality assurance".
I would think that, since they are effective monopolies in the areas they serve, that their franchise agreements don't let them just ditch customers that are troublemaking. I know this is up to each individual municipality, but I would hope there would be conditions in there on who they have to serve and the reasons that are allowed for them to not serve someone.
I would think that once both parties have agreed that the call is going to be recorded (via the automated message) that you would have no legal issues with recording the call yourself. Basically, as long as proper consent has been given to record the call (whether it's a 1-party state or 2-party state), then it doesn't matter who is doing the recording or where.
IANAL. Not legal advice, etc. etc.
I think you would just go to the front desk and have them issue you a traditional key in this scenario.
The ACA dictates that any health insurance plan must have an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 per year for an individual and $12,700 per year for a family. The MOST that multi-million dollar cancer treatment would cost anyone is $6,350. After that, 100% of the expenses are paid. Should a multimillion dollar cancer decide to strike the entire Octomom Clan, then the most that the Octoparents would be paying is $12,700.
Some plans have lower out-of-pocket maximums, but the highest that they can be and still be compliant with the ACA is $6,350. The out-of-pocket maximum also includes all deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, or any other such similar payments for all covered medical expenses (including prescriptions, exams, tests, labs, etc.)
So once the cost of treatment on a 20% coinsurance plan has totaled about $30,000, then the patient isn't paying for anything else out of their own pocket.
Donations to charitable and religious organizations are tax deductible. So the money being donated isn't being taxed.
correct. My home owners association is a legal corporation. But we make no moves to produce a profit. In fact, we actively work to reduce the member dues as much as possible to make sure we don't produce a profit or a loss.
This positioning of the screen will cause a lot of neck strain if used for extended periods. Your neck would then have to hold the weight of your head out over your chest. This will create a lot of strain on your neck muscles. You will start hating life after about a day or two.
I would think the point would be that machines, once properly programmed, can be the worlds safest drivers...statistically. You, as a human, will still be responsible for taking over when the machine doesn't know what to do. But, for the other 99.5% of the time, the self-driving car will make the best decisions and always be completely alert.
Self-Driving cars, I believe, have the ability to drastically reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents...one of the highest causes of death in the USA.
The fact that you are considering saving up to afford a pool is a statement of you being rich. Considering that an average in ground pool should cost about $25,000 to $50,000.
That's about the average annual salary for a person in the US...$50,000. That's more than the cost of a new luxury car...more than the cost of TWO new average cars... All for something that is a recreational activity and entirely unnecessary . On top of that, a recreational activity you can only enjoy for a few months of the year, in NJ if you're building an outdoor pool... and if it's an indoor pool, then the cost will be more than $50,000. If you are spending an amount of money equal to the average US salary on a recreational activity, then yes...you are indeed rich.
Most people, when they want to swim, will do so by going to a public municipal pool if you're poor, The Y if you're of average income, or if you're of above-average income, but still middle-class, you might have a private pool that is shared by your HOA or apartment complex. Anyone who owns a private in-ground pool, I would consider to be rich.
Now, there are many levels of rich...you are in the lower levels of rich, but you are indeed rich. The bands of rich are very large. Making about $150,000 per year puts you in to the lower-upper class. If you make $150,000 per year, you are in the top 5% of households. Make more than $250,000 per year? then you're in the top 1%. Given that you make $200k per year, you are probably in the top 2.5%. more than $250k per year puts you in the middle-upper class, and more than $1 million per year puts you in the upper-upper class.
Your comment touches on a video I once watched by a couple of gentlemen about Pascal's wager. Some of his arguments against Pascal's wager touch on what you brought up...there are such a huge number of different religions, almost all of them say "You must follow us. You must follow only us. If you do, you will get an infinitely happy and eternal afterlife. If you don't then you will go to hell (or whatever we call the bad place you go when you die) for all eternity."
He also includes all past religions that were (greek/roman/native american gods, etc.) and potential future religions. The possibilities are literally infinite.
They can't all be right. Good video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU
Because it holds the key to millions of people's music that they paid for?
The iTunes Music Store hasn't sold a song with DRM since April of 2009. Anyone who ever bought any song, that was DRM'd off the iTunes store is able to download a free DRM-free replacement anytime by logging in to their iTunes account...so long as that music is still currently for sale on the iTunes store. Heck, that replacement copy will even be upgraded to 256kbps quality too! If the music is still not for sale on the iTunes store, then anyone can use the good-old-fashioned burn and re-rip method to remove the DRM.
Couldn't you have hired somebody at the lower rate you were looking for 6 months ago and trained them to be proficient by now?
You say you don't have the time to train them... but for the last 6 months, you've been short staffed, having to do the work that this new hire is supposed to be doing, and searching for and interviewing candidates? With all the time you've invested over the last 6 months in looking for the "perfect candidate" and the extra money you are paying to actually bring them on board, you likely could've just hired someone who is mostly qualified (at the lower rate) and then spend the time you would've spent reading resumes and interviewing candidates to actually train this person...then you have them at a lower rate, and they can help with some aspects of their job while they are being trained.
the likelihood of getting infected from unprotected heterosexual activity is near zero.
Incorrect.
The rate of actually acquiring an infection from an infected source by insertive anal (gay) intercourse is 6.5 in 10,000 exposures. The rate for Insertive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 5 in 10,000 exposures. The difference there...1.5 cases in 10,000 is pretty inconsequential.
It is different for the receptive partners. Receptive anal (gay) intercourse is 50 infections per 10,000 exposures. The rate for receptive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 10 per 10,000 exposures. Receptive gay sex is 5 times as likely to transmit the disease as receptive vaginal sex...but when it's 10 per 10,000 vs 50 per 10,000, it's still within the same order of magnitude.
(Source, the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html)
The collaboration features will work on any device that has reasonable HTML 5 support as it is entirely browser based...including Mac, iDevices, Windows (IE, Chrome, Firefox), and a fair number of non-apple tablets...including the Surface. No license or account is needed for the collaborators.
undoing mod. It was funny, not overrated.
Er... I guess in his specific case, the Australian voters...But yeah, the bureaucrat is responsible to the voters.
The biggest problem you're facing down the road is when some bureaucrat decides that keeping you alive is not cost-effective
I'd rather have a government bureaucrat, who (in theory) answers to the american voters, make the decision rather than an insurance company CEO, who answers to his shareholders and whose only job is to squeeze out the most profit.
Yes. You are correct. In a few places, that wouldn't be possible. But that is on the states that chose to reject those proposals, not on the Feds. The ACA provides for 100% of the cost of the medicaid expansion for 3 years, and then 90% of the cost of it forever.
It wouldn't surprise me if the increase in money flowing to the states because of the additional medicaid dollars actually completely offset the 10% of the cost to the states through additional state tax revenue.
I agree. My interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision on the ACA pretty much comes to the conclusion that congress could indeed do that.
However, you still have representative government. If a politician were to vote for a such a plan, then I bet they would get voted out pretty quick.
I never made the argument that it was right or that's how government should operate...I was just arguing that it was, in fact, constitutional as the sole power to levy taxes lies with The Congress since that's what the original comment was about.
If you have no income, then...congratulations, you will qualify for medicare and get healthcare for free...you won't pay a tax. Simply enroll and enjoy.
Like I said before... it's an argument of semantics... getting a tax break for buying insurance is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing as having a tax penalty for not buying insurance. Either way, you are paying more in taxes for not buying health insurance...Just like you are paying more in taxes for not buying a mortgage...or paying more in taxes for not putting money in to your 401k...etc...etc...
To put it in terms a programmer can understand:
$tax=$tax+1000; if (hasInsurance($citizen)) { $tax=$tax-1000; }
is the same thing as
if (!hasInsurance($citizen)) {$tax=$tax+1000;}
Either way, if hasInsurance($citizen) is false, then the tax goes up by 1000.