That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both. Much of the fighting is the same as it is today, it comes from politicians attaching themselves to the church (or at times abuse of the church when politics and the church were one and the same). The views of both groups are not that fundamentally at odds even if the practices and minor points have considerable differences. Most conflicts between the groups were about power or revenge, neither is related to theology.
That is why I put in the part about having to understand their beliefs. Personally, I'm protestant, but the actual orthodox Catholic view is that Saints should not be worshiped but rather that they intercede on behalf of the person praying to them. They don't have any power or honor beyond being a hero of the faith so to speak. It does end up leading to (what I see as a minorly incorrect view) that their being "better" Christians results in God listening to them more, but it isn't idol or saint worship if properly following formal Catholic beliefs.
I honestly don't recall, I just listed them because they were in the original post. I may have misspoken in regards to them, but I didn't have the time to dig. That's honestly a my bad for not checking further.
Sorry, I think my statement was overly ambiguous. I meant "most protestant denominations" and "most/many Catholics who actually understand their religion". I clarified because I've run in to many Catholics who are more culturally catholic than practicing that have problems with protestants, however most devout Catholics who dig in to the official views of the catholic church don't have any major problems with most protestants.
In fairness, the majority of Christians tend to agree on what is in and what is out as far as classifying someone as Christian. Most protestant denominations and many Catholics that are well versed in the foundations of their beliefs don't have any major problems with most other major Christian groups. It's only really generally agreed to be a problem when you get groups like Mormons, 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses that have made major and core theological changes to the foundations of Christianity that have rendered the core views unrecognizable. Pretty much every denomination that holds those core views has a problem with them.
The only argument I've ever heard from protestant/evangelical circles about the Catholic church is that they have too many people that don't really know their religion and end up with a works based or genealogical based mode of salvation, but this isn't actually consistent with Catholic teaching, it's just an incorrect understanding held by many Catholics that haven't really dug in to their religion.
Under this system, many companies would pop up electing to not create content and simply use others. If you could only use the content released by other companies in that system, such systems already exist. It's called Public Domain and you are free to release work in to it. Similarly, you can use other licenses such as Creative Commons Share Alike to require your work and all derivatives be shared. It wouldn't be hard to make a license that required all IP produced by the entity to follow the same, though it could be gamed by having a separate legal entity to handle that material.
That is exactly my point though. If they negotiate lower prices, where does research come from? There isn't enough funds to do the research that produced the drugs (which incidentally is why costs in America go up, because they have to recover the research costs somewhere.)
Say the drug costs 10 cents a pill to physically produce, if the government says they'll only pay 20 cents per pill, it's still something towards the cost of developing and makes no sense to simply ignore, but if it cost a billion dollars to produce, they are never ever ever going to be able to cover the cost of developing it at that "deal".
The only way around it would be to cooperate, but that's just investing in their own going out of business if someone else happens to come up with a cheaper way to produce the result and ends up getting the entire market, so the market is forced to be both highly cheap and highly anti-cooperative and that isn't sustainable. Either the quality and quantity of development or the cost has to give.
The rules that the tax software uses are simple though. The IRS systems don't work well and are near impossible to update. If it was easy to write the software, they wouldn't have so much trouble updating it. Tax prep software doesn't follow all the special cases and intricacies, it just chooses the easy ones to implement. That's why wealthy people and companies don't do their taxes in TurboTax.
And your investment in research and cooperation between private entities becomes a joke because with a single payer, cooperation is participating in your own death. If there is only one customer, they are going to buy all their drugs and such from the same place. This means removes the room for cooperation entirely. Funding for research then has to be entirely on the government (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) but the winner take all kind of situation inevitably leads towards monopolies and those are bad for costs.
That's a valid point about the other sites. And actually, I believe I heard it from an argument provided by democrats or system builders as to why it wasn't working. I haven't looked in to it enough to see if it makes sense, but one of the arguments I have heard was that the problems were due to the complexity of the law and the requirements that were put on them by the government. I was only attempting to clarify how the AC OP's comment could make sense, not trying to claim it as fact or even personal belief. I thankfully have a great employer provided health plan that only went up in cost by 13% for 2014 after ACA took effect, so I'm not really worried about the exchange.
I am not the original poster, but my understanding is that a lot of the complexity of the site comes from a draconianly complex law that simply can't easily be implemented officially. There are so many hoops that have to be jumped through that it drags the system down. So yes, a badly conceived law could be a reason for the poor performance of the site if it puts overly burdensome constraints on the system. I don't make any claim to the accuracy of those assertions, but I know they have been made.
You danced around the edge of it but missed the real issue. The real issue is the fact that the worker is seen as a slacker if they take the time to do things securely. If security isn't a mandate from the CEO and pushed down and invested in hard by the entire management organization, then it won't work. Period. Security has to be everyone's job to work well. That said, it also doesn't have to be (and can't be) overly burdonsome, so much of what you said is still accurate.
The real key is that users must have the support of management to take the time it takes to be secure and processes must make sense so that users see the benefit and the fact that their managers support the process. If you don't have that, they are going to do what it takes to please there manager, not the IT Department, because that is their job.
I don't know about having a better feel where your money is going. I can get an exact list of everything I purchased in an easily accessible online format. It is hard to have a better idea where my money is going than that. Granted, I use credit cards only as the consumer protection laws are far better for credit cards than debit. Someone makes off with your debit card, you are screwed, someone makes off with your credit card, as long as you report it reasonably quickly, you owe nothing for charges that aren't you.
That said, you have to have the personal responsibility to not spend more than you have, but if you can do that, you get great credit from great companies with great perks. I save 1% on everything I purchase and 5% on all my gas purchases, and when I go to buy a house, my credit is so good it will save me serious money on interest rates. It also got me a 1.99% interest rate on my car purchase, which is cheap enough to mean that I'm better off investing money rather than paying off my car early.
As much as I may not like invasions of privacy, the fact is that this summary provides a bullshit excuse for the need of making court order resistant services. This kind of issue has been addressed numerous times in the past and is actually quite easy. You just have to have a system that breaks the files up through multiple keys required to unlock it. It's called separation of duties and has been done in any good security system for decades (centuries?) This way, a legitimate order can be processed because everyone is on board with a legal order, but an illegal action, such as a bribe can not happen without having to get numerous people on-board with the action.
If targeted advertising cost more (per sale) then traditional, it wouldn't be a field because nobody would pay for it. Advertisers are consumers too and they look for the best deal they can find that will give the biggest return on investment.
Targeted advertising however, does decrease the cost to bring to market. With untargeted advertising, you have to spray and pray, when you can spend less and get more effect for the price, that is cheaper for everyone.
While I generally agree, I have to disagree with the blanket statement that it's a bad idea to buy more than you otherwise would have. Sometimes (even perhaps most times) that is true, but there are times when it can be of benefit if it is something that a) won't go bad and b) you will eventually use, c) the cost of storing it for the extra time you need to store it plus the cost of using the funds earlier is cheaper than the discount received and d) you have sufficient liquidity to cover any additional upfront cost. (I suppose d is really related to c.)
As a direct example, I received a discount of buy 1 get 4 free from a photo paper retailer recently. Normally I don't buy from them as they are normally over priced by about 30% and normally I only buy one package of photo paper at a time. However, since I had the funds available to spend on it, I purchased 25 packs of paper for the cost of about 8 packages from another retailer. It will take me some time to go through all that paper, but the storage cost is dirt cheap (effectively free) and eventually the return is a huge benefit. That said, when dealing with impulse buys from discounts, it's hard to evaluate all of that on the spot.
At this point I'm going to assume you are either trolling or like to work with robots (who by the way tend to not be very good innovators). Yes, the education should happen on day one, but not everyone is (or should be) a security professional, so sometimes they will need reminding. Firing them immediately isn't the answer, reminding them sternly and letting them know that if problems continue, then they will be fired is. Certainly, if they regularly, recklessly disregard policy, then they need to go, but people are people and we have security professionals for a reason.
A good security professional understands that people want to get their work done first and that, while they are well meaning, won't be thinking about every detail of security 24/7 (as that isn't their job or training). You have to have users as allies to foster a spirit of cooperation in making sure things stay secure and that doesn't happen if you act like an unforgiving despot, it only leads to problems and distrust between users and security and leads to lower security.
Just look at any area where the police have a bad reputation because they crack down too hard rather than cooperating and educating people. The result is that people don't trust the police and won't even report outright issues, let alone activities that look suspicious. The result is the neighborhood goes to hell in a hand basket. The same thing applies in any organization.
Actually, the people taking shortcuts should be educated on why not to take shortcuts and the procedures reviewed to see if they can be improved. Overly burdensome security will harm moral and could possibly increase the chance of an internal breach, which is always the biggest risk since the people inside are supposed to have at least some access.
Actually, if you want to be technical, America is 2 continents. If you are going to be asinine, at least be sure you make a correct asinine statement. North America is a continent, South America is a continent. America generally refers to the country, Americas refers to the two continents and North or South America refer to the individual continents.
Well, there is if you burden it with so much security that people start taking shortcuts to use it that leave you more vulnerable, but I get what you mean. It's important to remember that even in high security situations, it's still a balancing act though.
Not if you make informed decisions and sometimes new products are the best and as an early adopter other knowledgeable people aren't always there. Some of us are capable of making decisions on objective criteria.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both. Much of the fighting is the same as it is today, it comes from politicians attaching themselves to the church (or at times abuse of the church when politics and the church were one and the same). The views of both groups are not that fundamentally at odds even if the practices and minor points have considerable differences. Most conflicts between the groups were about power or revenge, neither is related to theology.
That is why I put in the part about having to understand their beliefs. Personally, I'm protestant, but the actual orthodox Catholic view is that Saints should not be worshiped but rather that they intercede on behalf of the person praying to them. They don't have any power or honor beyond being a hero of the faith so to speak. It does end up leading to (what I see as a minorly incorrect view) that their being "better" Christians results in God listening to them more, but it isn't idol or saint worship if properly following formal Catholic beliefs.
Yeah, sorry, my bad. I just repeated the list that the previous poster mentioned. I don't think they belonged in the list after all.
I honestly don't recall, I just listed them because they were in the original post. I may have misspoken in regards to them, but I didn't have the time to dig. That's honestly a my bad for not checking further.
Sorry, I think my statement was overly ambiguous. I meant "most protestant denominations" and "most/many Catholics who actually understand their religion". I clarified because I've run in to many Catholics who are more culturally catholic than practicing that have problems with protestants, however most devout Catholics who dig in to the official views of the catholic church don't have any major problems with most protestants.
In fairness, the majority of Christians tend to agree on what is in and what is out as far as classifying someone as Christian. Most protestant denominations and many Catholics that are well versed in the foundations of their beliefs don't have any major problems with most other major Christian groups. It's only really generally agreed to be a problem when you get groups like Mormons, 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses that have made major and core theological changes to the foundations of Christianity that have rendered the core views unrecognizable. Pretty much every denomination that holds those core views has a problem with them.
The only argument I've ever heard from protestant/evangelical circles about the Catholic church is that they have too many people that don't really know their religion and end up with a works based or genealogical based mode of salvation, but this isn't actually consistent with Catholic teaching, it's just an incorrect understanding held by many Catholics that haven't really dug in to their religion.
Under this system, many companies would pop up electing to not create content and simply use others. If you could only use the content released by other companies in that system, such systems already exist. It's called Public Domain and you are free to release work in to it. Similarly, you can use other licenses such as Creative Commons Share Alike to require your work and all derivatives be shared. It wouldn't be hard to make a license that required all IP produced by the entity to follow the same, though it could be gamed by having a separate legal entity to handle that material.
That is exactly my point though. If they negotiate lower prices, where does research come from? There isn't enough funds to do the research that produced the drugs (which incidentally is why costs in America go up, because they have to recover the research costs somewhere.)
Say the drug costs 10 cents a pill to physically produce, if the government says they'll only pay 20 cents per pill, it's still something towards the cost of developing and makes no sense to simply ignore, but if it cost a billion dollars to produce, they are never ever ever going to be able to cover the cost of developing it at that "deal".
The only way around it would be to cooperate, but that's just investing in their own going out of business if someone else happens to come up with a cheaper way to produce the result and ends up getting the entire market, so the market is forced to be both highly cheap and highly anti-cooperative and that isn't sustainable. Either the quality and quantity of development or the cost has to give.
The rules that the tax software uses are simple though. The IRS systems don't work well and are near impossible to update. If it was easy to write the software, they wouldn't have so much trouble updating it. Tax prep software doesn't follow all the special cases and intricacies, it just chooses the easy ones to implement. That's why wealthy people and companies don't do their taxes in TurboTax.
And your investment in research and cooperation between private entities becomes a joke because with a single payer, cooperation is participating in your own death. If there is only one customer, they are going to buy all their drugs and such from the same place. This means removes the room for cooperation entirely. Funding for research then has to be entirely on the government (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) but the winner take all kind of situation inevitably leads towards monopolies and those are bad for costs.
That's a valid point about the other sites. And actually, I believe I heard it from an argument provided by democrats or system builders as to why it wasn't working. I haven't looked in to it enough to see if it makes sense, but one of the arguments I have heard was that the problems were due to the complexity of the law and the requirements that were put on them by the government. I was only attempting to clarify how the AC OP's comment could make sense, not trying to claim it as fact or even personal belief. I thankfully have a great employer provided health plan that only went up in cost by 13% for 2014 after ACA took effect, so I'm not really worried about the exchange.
I am not the original poster, but my understanding is that a lot of the complexity of the site comes from a draconianly complex law that simply can't easily be implemented officially. There are so many hoops that have to be jumped through that it drags the system down. So yes, a badly conceived law could be a reason for the poor performance of the site if it puts overly burdensome constraints on the system. I don't make any claim to the accuracy of those assertions, but I know they have been made.
You danced around the edge of it but missed the real issue. The real issue is the fact that the worker is seen as a slacker if they take the time to do things securely. If security isn't a mandate from the CEO and pushed down and invested in hard by the entire management organization, then it won't work. Period. Security has to be everyone's job to work well. That said, it also doesn't have to be (and can't be) overly burdonsome, so much of what you said is still accurate.
The real key is that users must have the support of management to take the time it takes to be secure and processes must make sense so that users see the benefit and the fact that their managers support the process. If you don't have that, they are going to do what it takes to please there manager, not the IT Department, because that is their job.
Well if we launch the UN in to the asteroid early enough, their bureaucracy may have enough mass to deflect it.
I don't know about having a better feel where your money is going. I can get an exact list of everything I purchased in an easily accessible online format. It is hard to have a better idea where my money is going than that. Granted, I use credit cards only as the consumer protection laws are far better for credit cards than debit. Someone makes off with your debit card, you are screwed, someone makes off with your credit card, as long as you report it reasonably quickly, you owe nothing for charges that aren't you.
That said, you have to have the personal responsibility to not spend more than you have, but if you can do that, you get great credit from great companies with great perks. I save 1% on everything I purchase and 5% on all my gas purchases, and when I go to buy a house, my credit is so good it will save me serious money on interest rates. It also got me a 1.99% interest rate on my car purchase, which is cheap enough to mean that I'm better off investing money rather than paying off my car early.
As much as I may not like invasions of privacy, the fact is that this summary provides a bullshit excuse for the need of making court order resistant services. This kind of issue has been addressed numerous times in the past and is actually quite easy. You just have to have a system that breaks the files up through multiple keys required to unlock it. It's called separation of duties and has been done in any good security system for decades (centuries?) This way, a legitimate order can be processed because everyone is on board with a legal order, but an illegal action, such as a bribe can not happen without having to get numerous people on-board with the action.
If targeted advertising cost more (per sale) then traditional, it wouldn't be a field because nobody would pay for it. Advertisers are consumers too and they look for the best deal they can find that will give the biggest return on investment.
Targeted advertising however, does decrease the cost to bring to market. With untargeted advertising, you have to spray and pray, when you can spend less and get more effect for the price, that is cheaper for everyone.
While I generally agree, I have to disagree with the blanket statement that it's a bad idea to buy more than you otherwise would have. Sometimes (even perhaps most times) that is true, but there are times when it can be of benefit if it is something that a) won't go bad and b) you will eventually use, c) the cost of storing it for the extra time you need to store it plus the cost of using the funds earlier is cheaper than the discount received and d) you have sufficient liquidity to cover any additional upfront cost. (I suppose d is really related to c.)
As a direct example, I received a discount of buy 1 get 4 free from a photo paper retailer recently. Normally I don't buy from them as they are normally over priced by about 30% and normally I only buy one package of photo paper at a time. However, since I had the funds available to spend on it, I purchased 25 packs of paper for the cost of about 8 packages from another retailer. It will take me some time to go through all that paper, but the storage cost is dirt cheap (effectively free) and eventually the return is a huge benefit. That said, when dealing with impulse buys from discounts, it's hard to evaluate all of that on the spot.
At this point I'm going to assume you are either trolling or like to work with robots (who by the way tend to not be very good innovators). Yes, the education should happen on day one, but not everyone is (or should be) a security professional, so sometimes they will need reminding. Firing them immediately isn't the answer, reminding them sternly and letting them know that if problems continue, then they will be fired is. Certainly, if they regularly, recklessly disregard policy, then they need to go, but people are people and we have security professionals for a reason.
A good security professional understands that people want to get their work done first and that, while they are well meaning, won't be thinking about every detail of security 24/7 (as that isn't their job or training). You have to have users as allies to foster a spirit of cooperation in making sure things stay secure and that doesn't happen if you act like an unforgiving despot, it only leads to problems and distrust between users and security and leads to lower security.
Just look at any area where the police have a bad reputation because they crack down too hard rather than cooperating and educating people. The result is that people don't trust the police and won't even report outright issues, let alone activities that look suspicious. The result is the neighborhood goes to hell in a hand basket. The same thing applies in any organization.
Actually, the people taking shortcuts should be educated on why not to take shortcuts and the procedures reviewed to see if they can be improved. Overly burdensome security will harm moral and could possibly increase the chance of an internal breach, which is always the biggest risk since the people inside are supposed to have at least some access.
But what if you're wrong that I could be wrong?
Actually, if you want to be technical, America is 2 continents. If you are going to be asinine, at least be sure you make a correct asinine statement. North America is a continent, South America is a continent. America generally refers to the country, Americas refers to the two continents and North or South America refer to the individual continents.
Well, there is if you burden it with so much security that people start taking shortcuts to use it that leave you more vulnerable, but I get what you mean. It's important to remember that even in high security situations, it's still a balancing act though.
Not if you make informed decisions and sometimes new products are the best and as an early adopter other knowledgeable people aren't always there. Some of us are capable of making decisions on objective criteria.