My understanding is this - the report claims that the US spends ~$9,000 per capita for health care. In the same row, they break that out into $4,000 in public funds and programs, $1000 out of pocket private and ~$3500 "other".
Per their own document, the "public" part of those funds only cover 34% of the population and do not include government-mandated health care premiums that employers pay. Since all of the other nations the "public" funds covers everyone, the totals of public, private (out of pocket) and private (other) make sense, but here they do not.
So by that logic, if we were adding them together in a sum it should be: (4,000 * 0.34) + (4,500 * 0.66) = 1,360 + 2,970 = 4,330. Let's be generous and assume that with some people paying more and some people paying less that even creeps up to $5,500. That's still not the massive increase claimed.
As I'm interested in making sure I'm not overlooking anything - where does the $9,000 number come from otherwise and what do you see the correctly-stated conclusion to be?
Most people will point back to this report http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective claiming that we spend more than 2x everyone else on our health care. But look carefully at the numbers as it's divided into public (e.g. the government pays) and private spending (a citizen pays out of pocket) and they note that 34% of the us citizens are on public programs - and the public number would be higher if they counted employer-mandated health care.
What does that mean? It means that the US is actually spending $4,000 per capita, either publicly or privately, NOT the $9,000 claimed by the report. Our cancer outcomes are much better than anyone in the world, but we get dinged by the report for having lower quality of life and worse outcomes with obesity-related diseases.
But I would argue that's often not a health system failure, but a cultural failure. We don't slow down enough to sit and eat our meals, we eat them on the go or in our cars or while writing emails on our personal devices and cope by drinking sugar and caffeine to keep us going.
About the "government is accountable" claim, it's bunk when the citizens won't hold them accountable, in fact it's worse as a company needs to be lean enough to turn a profit where the government can play the shell game to just reach further into our pockets. Judging by how medicare is going, once single-payer comes into play, there will be mainly large corporate players who are the medical providers as they'll be able to absorb the cost via volume rather than your neighborhood doctor who won't be able to afford the cut rates and high paperwork overhead that will be demanded.
We need real solutions - single payer may be one, but we need to have an honest discussion about what that means and what we will be willing to both pay for in tax increases and take in cuts to our current level of care.
If you want "view source" to be useful, you need to go back to coding with simplicity in mind.
The original post talks about viewing the source of the google homepage and getting an incomprehensible slurry. But why? What does that actually accomplish? The page is one text entry box, and 2 buttons, plus a graphic above it. There is ZERO excuse for it being over 47,000 characters (not counting all the other stuff it pulls in).
Let's not conflate _visual_ simplicity with functional simplicity because the google homepage is not simple as described. The image is not a simple image, it's either the logo or a doodle that gets updated on various days or times. The text box is a regular text box until one starts typing or clicks the mic icon to speak a search, then it changes to a predictive search and starts showing results to get users to where they want to go more quickly. The top bar is not just decoration, it's links to other google apps and a user/login widget.
But this isn't at all rare on today's web. This is also why so many pages are so horrendously slow to load, it's all scripts and links to other files and domains, even the simplest websites use absolutely incredible amounts of bandwidth, and yet do no more than could be done in 1/100th the size or less, and be human readable. 99.99999% of these sites aren't huge for any good reason, they're just horribly inefficient.
Since 99.9999% of websites cost money to build, maintain and serve to clients and since a majority of clients are interested in free content rather than paying for content, it's either selling product or services, showing ads or eating the cost to cover the cost of building and running the site. Ads are terrible and bloat out most web pages as they only care about the ad being shown and additional services require engagement from users. This results in annoying behavior for users as they've learned to ignore ads on pages or use ad blockers, so now it's an entitlement fight - but remember that content creators don't have to create content.:-)
As well, _most_ of the little sites (blogs, etc) use some sort of CMS framework to drive it and their owners want the blog to both look nice and have engagement features like sharing, etc., which requires more assets and more downloading than "simple" sites. Not only this, but users expect websites to work and look great on any device they fancy reading webpages on, so now there must be a bunch of responsive work and extra code to handle this kind of thing nicely. Generally that means developers will use a framework like boostrap or material design to accomplish it. This increases page bloat but is offset by better caching of the library if using a CDN correctly.
Going back to google.com, the reason there's so much code in a "simple" page is that the guts of most of the logic for displaying the page and its widgetry is now working from the web browser instead of the server. It cuts down on page reloading and speeds up how quickly they connect users with their search results. And Google's front page and searching are _not_ slow.
TL;DR google.com is not simple and there's no such thing as free - it always costs someone something.
We use OpenBSD here at work, and it works beautifully. We have 2 networks, one on each coast of the US. Each routes through a different ISP to the internet. Computers on both networks are primarily Windows, with a smattering of mac and linux, and it works very very well. There's even a very nice HOWTO for it included with the OpenBSD distro. We use it to not only route via a VPN, but also to do some masquing for us and it works great.... That's my $0.02(US)
We've had a 14-hr tivo since just about when it came out (June or July) and love it. My roommates and I can set it to record the shows that we like to watch, but have time conflicts. Not only that, but we watch with strategy. If we are watching a 30 minute program, we usually let TiVo start recording it and then come in 10 minutes later and watch the program and fast forward through the commercials, but it's almost as if we are watching in real time =) As far as the whole commercial thing goes, it's not that horrible. Kudos to phillips for realizing that if they put this together with a feature that allows people to just hit a button to skip commercials that we would have another DAT frenzy on our hands. We also record movies on it, but found that the best way to do so was to record the movie (from HBO or whatever) and then dump it down to VHS. Yeah the quality drops slightly, but it saves the disk space and us having to be up at 4am;) All in all we really like it, and found that when our warrantee is up we are opening the puppy up and maybe making some mods;) --ak
I think mkkickstart is a good tool to use, but the beauty of it is you can create the kickstart by hand as well. It's beautiful for rolling out machines. You pop the kickstart disk in with all of the options pre-set and you don't have to touch it again till it reboots. In fact, if you are installing from custom (i.e. you burned your own or on network) you can actually have it install the apps that are custom to your shop (i.e. ssh, Eterm, apache build, oracle libs) That's just one of those options I saw sitting around and never played with until about a month ago, but I really like it now =)
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is this - the report claims that the US spends ~$9,000 per capita for health care. In the same row, they break that out into $4,000 in public funds and programs, $1000 out of pocket private and ~$3500 "other".
Per their own document, the "public" part of those funds only cover 34% of the population and do not include government-mandated health care premiums that employers pay. Since all of the other nations the "public" funds covers everyone, the totals of public, private (out of pocket) and private (other) make sense, but here they do not.
So by that logic, if we were adding them together in a sum it should be:
(4,000 * 0.34) + (4,500 * 0.66) = 1,360 + 2,970 = 4,330. Let's be generous and assume that with some people paying more and some people paying less that even creeps up to $5,500. That's still not the massive increase claimed.
As I'm interested in making sure I'm not overlooking anything - where does the $9,000 number come from otherwise and what do you see the correctly-stated conclusion to be?
Most people will point back to this report http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective claiming that we spend more than 2x everyone else on our health care. But look carefully at the numbers as it's divided into public (e.g. the government pays) and private spending (a citizen pays out of pocket) and they note that 34% of the us citizens are on public programs - and the public number would be higher if they counted employer-mandated health care.
What does that mean? It means that the US is actually spending $4,000 per capita, either publicly or privately, NOT the $9,000 claimed by the report. Our cancer outcomes are much better than anyone in the world, but we get dinged by the report for having lower quality of life and worse outcomes with obesity-related diseases.
But I would argue that's often not a health system failure, but a cultural failure. We don't slow down enough to sit and eat our meals, we eat them on the go or in our cars or while writing emails on our personal devices and cope by drinking sugar and caffeine to keep us going.
About the "government is accountable" claim, it's bunk when the citizens won't hold them accountable, in fact it's worse as a company needs to be lean enough to turn a profit where the government can play the shell game to just reach further into our pockets. Judging by how medicare is going, once single-payer comes into play, there will be mainly large corporate players who are the medical providers as they'll be able to absorb the cost via volume rather than your neighborhood doctor who won't be able to afford the cut rates and high paperwork overhead that will be demanded.
We need real solutions - single payer may be one, but we need to have an honest discussion about what that means and what we will be willing to both pay for in tax increases and take in cuts to our current level of care.
If you want "view source" to be useful, you need to go back to coding with simplicity in mind.
The original post talks about viewing the source of the google homepage and getting an incomprehensible slurry. But why? What does that actually accomplish? The page is one text entry box, and 2 buttons, plus a graphic above it. There is ZERO excuse for it being over 47,000 characters (not counting all the other stuff it pulls in).
Let's not conflate _visual_ simplicity with functional simplicity because the google homepage is not simple as described. The image is not a simple image, it's either the logo or a doodle that gets updated on various days or times. The text box is a regular text box until one starts typing or clicks the mic icon to speak a search, then it changes to a predictive search and starts showing results to get users to where they want to go more quickly. The top bar is not just decoration, it's links to other google apps and a user/login widget.
But this isn't at all rare on today's web. This is also why so many pages are so horrendously slow to load, it's all scripts and links to other files and domains, even the simplest websites use absolutely incredible amounts of bandwidth, and yet do no more than could be done in 1/100th the size or less, and be human readable. 99.99999% of these sites aren't huge for any good reason, they're just horribly inefficient.
Since 99.9999% of websites cost money to build, maintain and serve to clients and since a majority of clients are interested in free content rather than paying for content, it's either selling product or services, showing ads or eating the cost to cover the cost of building and running the site. Ads are terrible and bloat out most web pages as they only care about the ad being shown and additional services require engagement from users. This results in annoying behavior for users as they've learned to ignore ads on pages or use ad blockers, so now it's an entitlement fight - but remember that content creators don't have to create content. :-)
As well, _most_ of the little sites (blogs, etc) use some sort of CMS framework to drive it and their owners want the blog to both look nice and have engagement features like sharing, etc., which requires more assets and more downloading than "simple" sites. Not only this, but users expect websites to work and look great on any device they fancy reading webpages on, so now there must be a bunch of responsive work and extra code to handle this kind of thing nicely. Generally that means developers will use a framework like boostrap or material design to accomplish it. This increases page bloat but is offset by better caching of the library if using a CDN correctly.
Going back to google.com, the reason there's so much code in a "simple" page is that the guts of most of the logic for displaying the page and its widgetry is now working from the web browser instead of the server. It cuts down on page reloading and speeds up how quickly they connect users with their search results. And Google's front page and searching are _not_ slow.
TL;DR google.com is not simple and there's no such thing as free - it always costs someone something.
Hey HeelToe,
:remove: yahoo DOT com
I don't have an email address for you or I'd ask there; what Charter area are you in?
audiokat AT
Cool! It would be a good way to see if my new video card will work with the new Sims. =)
The article says nothing about tinkering with codecs, in fact the cnet article mentions that this is delivery only. Noone's stealing anything.
We use OpenBSD here at work, and it works beautifully. We have 2 networks, one on each coast of the US. Each routes through a different ISP to the internet. Computers on both networks are primarily Windows, with a smattering of mac and linux, and it works very very well. There's even a very nice HOWTO for it included with the OpenBSD distro. We use it to not only route via a VPN, but also to do some masquing for us and it works great....
That's my $0.02(US)
We've had a 14-hr tivo since just about when it came out (June or July) and love it. My roommates and I can set it to record the shows that we like to watch, but have time conflicts. Not only that, but we watch with strategy. If we are watching a 30 minute program, we usually let TiVo start recording it and then come in 10 minutes later and watch the program and fast forward through the commercials, but it's almost as if we are watching in real time =) As far as the whole commercial thing goes, it's not that horrible. Kudos to phillips for realizing that if they put this together with a feature that allows people to just hit a button to skip commercials that we would have another DAT frenzy on our hands. We also record movies on it, but found that the best way to do so was to record the movie (from HBO or whatever) and then dump it down to VHS. Yeah the quality drops slightly, but it saves the disk space and us having to be up at 4am ;) All in all we really like it, and found that when our warrantee is up we are opening the puppy up and maybe making some mods ;) --ak
I think mkkickstart is a good tool to use, but the beauty of it is you can create the kickstart by hand as well. It's beautiful for rolling out machines. You pop the kickstart disk in with all of the options pre-set and you don't have to touch it again till it reboots. In fact, if you are installing from custom (i.e. you burned your own or on network) you can actually have it install the apps that are custom to your shop (i.e. ssh, Eterm, apache build, oracle libs) That's just one of those options I saw sitting around and never played with until about a month ago, but I really like it now =)