It's killing me, I've spent the last 6 hours searching the web for any information on which $Celebrity we are talking about. I've run into a few instances where there was speculation and finger pointing, but nobody is actually coming out with names. It's terrible! The world must know!
You forgot to touch on the fact that the AC pointed out that the person in question has no job and is therefore not contributing to society in the first place...
If we play by those rules, I'm going to quit my job as well and get free cancer treatments whenever I need them!
GP said access to health care. It's not my fault if you choose to not use it.
By your definition, we would be required to have regular checkups by law for that to work. Most people would abuse the system if put into place by only visiting the hospital when something was wrong. They aren't going to suddenly change their habits and start visiting the doctor every 6 months.
So I have a serious question for you... This country has gone 200+ years without health care coverage for everyone. What changed in the past few years that makes the world any different? The treatments have gotten better and the costs for life saving treatments have gone up. Heaven forbid we reward the doctors that came up with these new treatments! Can you still get the same treatment you got 30 years ago? I'll bet you can. You may not survive with them alone, but I'm sure you can request the same treatment. If you want the new technology and the new treatments at the same cost as the old, you need to wake up.
Oblig. Car reference: You can't just walk into a dealership and demand the Corvette at the price of the Cobalt. Research, money and time went into making the Corvette what it is. Being able to demand the same car for less is arrogance. Sure, there's a difference between a car and your life, but this is the world we live in. You have to pay for services provided.
If you want to pay less in health care, maybe you should consider if your life is worth your children paying the rest of their life for the few years you may have left. Can you look your kids in the face and tell them you are worth the million dollar treatment that has a 35% chance of extending your life 6 months?
Careful where you point blame here. The hospital should be able to reject anyone that can't pay for treatment, but they'd be quickly martyred by the media.
I love that question every time I see it... "What if you are diagnosed with cancer?" You pay for it or you die. It's not your responsibility to pay for my treatment. You can donate to my treatment if you like, but you can also choose not to. I don't care.
If I choose to set back money to cover an accident or an emergency then that makes me a better citizen. If I choose to not put that money aside and live on the edge, why should I be held on a pedestal as a responsible part of society?
You can also take that $1000 into the doctor's office and pay him directly for the visit. (actually, it's much less if you tell him you are paying cash. All the doctor's I've asked give me a deduction for paying cash that day because that's less work they have to do and pay for.
You don't NEED health insurance to get taken care of. It helps cover the costs in an emergency if you didn't allocate "emergency money" (because you think ahead and plan) but you still have to pay it. You are just paying someone else to manage your money for you and take a risk on your health condition.
It ain't much I'm asking if you want the truth Here's to the future Hear the cry of youth (hear the cry hear the cry of youth) I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now I want it all (yeah yeah yeah) I want it all I want it all and I want it now
You must have been lucky enough to live in an area where farmers were being gouged a per acreage tax for all the school levies that were needed to support the poorly managed neighboring school systems while the folks in town living on 0.25 acres decided that their cost for education was minimal and decided to kick out three or four more kids a piece which increased the schooling costs.
So this farmer that has 350+ acres of land needs to pay over 1400 times more than someone else for their kid to attend the same school. Since his vote only accounts for a total of 1, while he pays 1400 times more than someone else for said taxes, you can see where it could be more expensive to live in the country. This is of course much worse if part of that land is not tillable because of a run-off, patch of forest or some other reason but it's still taxed at the same rate. Oh, and good luck selling that land to a homeowner with those taxes.
Then they'd have to compete and provide better products at a lower price! All those farmers happy without Internet access will have an unfair pricing advantage! We can't have that.
I'm sure it will be worked into the Constitution at some point the way things are going.
Amendment XXVIII: The right of every man, woman, and child to have regulated basic public services
It will include clauses for the suspension of said services on April 15 to certain individuals, the right for federal access to usage records and a slew of other things...
But it also opens those sites up to manipulation. All it takes is one company to pay a few people to give them nothing but excellent reviews, get a new email and do it over again. You could charge people a subscription to post, but the company would cover this.
Then your boss's boss tells your boss... then you're labelled as the complainer and he remembers that on your next review.
I've always been told that going over the head of your boss was the only way to do it, but when your actions lead to the invitation of your boss into the room so you can tell him exactly what kind of moronic thing you think he's doing because his boss doesn't want to deal with it... then you end up being the target.
I've never found going above the head of the person bothering you does any good because they always try to force you into a position of telling the person yourself... it places you into a position of alienation with said person.
I think it has to do with the attention factor. ACs can post what they want, but they aren't going to get more than a few views before someone mods them out of view to the default filters. They lose the attention a controversial topic may bring and they soon get bored and move on to those other sites. In this case, "Don't feed the trolls," seems to be working!
I have a Windows machine which has been running just fine for years, but that doesn't mean that it's just as secure. If I do get a virus on that machine, there's a greater chance I will be rebuilding it opposed to my Linux machine.
Truthfully, I'm not sure if screen savers require root access to install, but it wouldn't be that difficult to change that. Each user picks their own screensaver so it goes to say that it could be stored and run from their own binary folder.
That's also why I don't give my parents the sudo password.
Technically, all of them. They have a root user and the regular user at least. If they only have a root user, they are asking for trouble, imposed by themselves. In most cases, there are users created for some applications (for instance FTP) that have even stricter access than someone with local login permissions.
Slashdot Mirror
1. You can make a gun.
2. Arms can be considered a knife, a thick wooden branch from a tree, a rock, or (IMHO) a tank.
In some cases, a car may also be considered one of many Arms.
It's killing me, I've spent the last 6 hours searching the web for any information on which $Celebrity we are talking about. I've run into a few instances where there was speculation and finger pointing, but nobody is actually coming out with names. It's terrible! The world must know!
You forgot to touch on the fact that the AC pointed out that the person in question has no job and is therefore not contributing to society in the first place...
If we play by those rules, I'm going to quit my job as well and get free cancer treatments whenever I need them!
GP said access to health care. It's not my fault if you choose to not use it.
By your definition, we would be required to have regular checkups by law for that to work. Most people would abuse the system if put into place by only visiting the hospital when something was wrong. They aren't going to suddenly change their habits and start visiting the doctor every 6 months.
Especially if the person buying food with food stamps put all that food into the SUV with $10K+ in chrome rims and televisions in each seat back.
But hey... it's their right to own a huge car! They can't possibly be forced to drive around in a used station wagon or a hatchback.
So I have a serious question for you... This country has gone 200+ years without health care coverage for everyone. What changed in the past few years that makes the world any different? The treatments have gotten better and the costs for life saving treatments have gone up. Heaven forbid we reward the doctors that came up with these new treatments! Can you still get the same treatment you got 30 years ago? I'll bet you can. You may not survive with them alone, but I'm sure you can request the same treatment. If you want the new technology and the new treatments at the same cost as the old, you need to wake up.
Oblig. Car reference: You can't just walk into a dealership and demand the Corvette at the price of the Cobalt. Research, money and time went into making the Corvette what it is. Being able to demand the same car for less is arrogance. Sure, there's a difference between a car and your life, but this is the world we live in. You have to pay for services provided.
If you want to pay less in health care, maybe you should consider if your life is worth your children paying the rest of their life for the few years you may have left. Can you look your kids in the face and tell them you are worth the million dollar treatment that has a 35% chance of extending your life 6 months?
Careful where you point blame here. The hospital should be able to reject anyone that can't pay for treatment, but they'd be quickly martyred by the media.
I love that question every time I see it... "What if you are diagnosed with cancer?" You pay for it or you die. It's not your responsibility to pay for my treatment. You can donate to my treatment if you like, but you can also choose not to. I don't care.
If I choose to set back money to cover an accident or an emergency then that makes me a better citizen. If I choose to not put that money aside and live on the edge, why should I be held on a pedestal as a responsible part of society?
You can also take that $1000 into the doctor's office and pay him directly for the visit. (actually, it's much less if you tell him you are paying cash. All the doctor's I've asked give me a deduction for paying cash that day because that's less work they have to do and pay for.
You don't NEED health insurance to get taken care of. It helps cover the costs in an emergency if you didn't allocate "emergency money" (because you think ahead and plan) but you still have to pay it. You are just paying someone else to manage your money for you and take a risk on your health condition.
It ain't much I'm asking if you want the truth
Here's to the future
Hear the cry of youth (hear the cry hear the cry of youth)
I want it all I want it all I want it all and I want it now
I want it all (yeah yeah yeah) I want it all I want it all and I
want it now
I want it
Now
I want it I want it
You must have been lucky enough to live in an area where farmers were being gouged a per acreage tax for all the school levies that were needed to support the poorly managed neighboring school systems while the folks in town living on 0.25 acres decided that their cost for education was minimal and decided to kick out three or four more kids a piece which increased the schooling costs.
So this farmer that has 350+ acres of land needs to pay over 1400 times more than someone else for their kid to attend the same school. Since his vote only accounts for a total of 1, while he pays 1400 times more than someone else for said taxes, you can see where it could be more expensive to live in the country. This is of course much worse if part of that land is not tillable because of a run-off, patch of forest or some other reason but it's still taxed at the same rate. Oh, and good luck selling that land to a homeowner with those taxes.
Then they'd have to compete and provide better products at a lower price! All those farmers happy without Internet access will have an unfair pricing advantage! We can't have that.
...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I'm sure they are hurting from such an event when they spend all that money.
I'm sure it will be worked into the Constitution at some point the way things are going.
Amendment XXVIII: The right of every man, woman, and child to have regulated basic public services
It will include clauses for the suspension of said services on April 15 to certain individuals, the right for federal access to usage records and a slew of other things...
But it also opens those sites up to manipulation. All it takes is one company to pay a few people to give them nothing but excellent reviews, get a new email and do it over again. You could charge people a subscription to post, but the company would cover this.
Then your boss's boss tells your boss... then you're labelled as the complainer and he remembers that on your next review.
I've always been told that going over the head of your boss was the only way to do it, but when your actions lead to the invitation of your boss into the room so you can tell him exactly what kind of moronic thing you think he's doing because his boss doesn't want to deal with it... then you end up being the target.
I've never found going above the head of the person bothering you does any good because they always try to force you into a position of telling the person yourself... it places you into a position of alienation with said person.
I think it has to do with the attention factor. ACs can post what they want, but they aren't going to get more than a few views before someone mods them out of view to the default filters. They lose the attention a controversial topic may bring and they soon get bored and move on to those other sites. In this case, "Don't feed the trolls," seems to be working!
Maybe it was an auto-converter's version of ON ERROR RESUME NEXT.
Now we are arguing semantics... ;)
I have a Windows machine which has been running just fine for years, but that doesn't mean that it's just as secure. If I do get a virus on that machine, there's a greater chance I will be rebuilding it opposed to my Linux machine.
The argument is still the same. I'd rather be able to tell someone who can that they may than tell them they may not.
Anyone can try to fix it. Some may be better than others, but that's doesn't preclude someone from trying. Whereas, on competing systems you may not.
Truthfully, I'm not sure if screen savers require root access to install, but it wouldn't be that difficult to change that. Each user picks their own screensaver so it goes to say that it could be stored and run from their own binary folder.
That's also why I don't give my parents the sudo password.
Technically, all of them. They have a root user and the regular user at least. If they only have a root user, they are asking for trouble, imposed by themselves. In most cases, there are users created for some applications (for instance FTP) that have even stricter access than someone with local login permissions.
... which has nothing to do with how secure the operating system is, but the profile itself.
You are arguing about ignorance of users, not the security of the OS...