Mr. Laden didn't carry out the attacks himself: he got grunts to it. Most of the rank-and-file attackers or not well-off. Focusing on high-profile leaders in the org is misleading. Then again, I expect that from N.R.
The US may have to allow more immigrants in order to be competitive with China and perhaps other populous countries in a potential cyber-war. It's more or less a game of man-power. Either that, you siphon techies off of other fields. Maybe the "secret plan" is to send all non-military IT work to India, freeing the rest to be cyber warriors? Our trade deficit will be Jupiter-sized, though.
The reality of healthcare politics is that a majority have and still do want some kind of gov't managed insurance to pool risk. Only about 1/4 want to go back to the way things were before ACA (link below).
IF a political entity rants to change or repeal it, they need to first specify in detail what to replace it with or change.
Every known non-trivial change will sock it to one group of people in order to benefit another, and thus wouldn't be an easy sell.
Griping is easy; presenting viable alternatives is not.
And each state CAN run it's own exchange site if it doesn't like the federal one.
Tell me private insurance plans never F'd up billing etc?
And then there are intentional games. Telecoms sneak goofy fees into our bills all the time. Why do their "mistakes" always add fees instead of remove them?
Republicans are just drama queens with O-care. "They made a tax boo boo, the sky is falling! Gov't is Beelzebub! Arm yourself with garlic bullets!"
It's not all-or-nothing. Some aggression is necessary, too little or too much is harmful. The destructive power that a small group can obtain is getting too great. Society ceases to function when the rotten apples can spoil the entire barrel instead of merely a fraction of it.
Old-style weapons didn't allow the bad apples to do too much damage most of the time. There were flukes like Genghis Khan, but newer weapons allow too many to be Genghis Khan's also, or at least have similar destructive power.
When 1 out of 10 million can do Genghis Khan things, civilization recovers and survives. But not if one out of every 10 thousand is. Especially if population is denser. Newer weapons give jerks too damned much power.
supports funding universal healthcare by aggressive government action
Perhaps we should refine our use of "aggression" here.
In any society, we cannot all have our way on every issue. We will be subject to rules created by somebody or something partly or mostly outside of our personal control. It's a necessary part of civilization. Some civilizations use democracy to make such rule decisions, some use autocratic rule, and many something in between to make the rules.
The key issue is HOW individuals or smaller groups deal with rules they don't personally like. I consider the "non violent" solution to be either working within the framework of the system (such as campaigning for change or going to court), or civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a middle-of-road approach where one breaks relatively minor laws to get attention. But generally nobody gets hurt, just inconvenienced.
The third approach is anarchy and terrorism, where violence is used to either get attention or directly force institutional change by intimidation or self-imposed rule.
The forth approach is suicidal annihilation. It's a form of, "If I can't get my way, then NOBODY gets their way."
We have too much of the 3rd and 4th approach on this planet. Too many humans are wired or have natural tendencies toward approach 3 and 4.
(It could be argued there are times and places for approach #3, but we still have too much of it.)
No. Automobile performance is relatively easy to measure. Medical service is not because there are gajillion different types of treatment. If your brain surgery goes awry, you are too feeble to sue. And it's difficult to shop around when in pain. Plus, much about cars is regulated, such as safety.
If a product or service grows beyond a certain complexity, and/or the down-sides are long-term, then the consumer is often ill-equipped to make good decisions. Each individual is re-inventing trial-and-error lessons, which is poor factoring of knowledge, and therefore economically inefficient. There's no "reuse".
And quality evaluation companies have proven bribe-able or manipulate-able when their statements affect enough sales. For example, if bribed enough, they may be encouraged to skip evaluating a shady product altogether, and its legal.
The US has had poor service relative to other countries. They only thing the US did better on was cutting edge research, but the benefits of those often went to the well-to-do.
Seeing what exactly? Most of the health providers are private companies. O-care just ensures everybody pays into the system and that the providers correctly provide at least a minimum standard levels of service. If you wish to privatize parts of this mix, what parts would it be?
I agree it's easier said than done. I would note that much of the Federal government already contracts out routine and easy-to-define services. It's one of the reason why the average salary of a Federal employee is higher than average: many repetitious and simpler tasks are already contacted out. The remaining Federal employees are largely overseers and inspectors, which generally require more credentials and experience, resulting in a high average salary. (Rush L. fails to mention this in his salary rants.)
But devil is in the details, and without specific scenarios or situations, it's hard to comment on the article.
I can envision cases where the privacy of gov't employees is put at risk if you publish who did what and when. Being too far under a microscope can make one over-focus on CYA instead of getting the job done efficiently.
Yes, but think of the fun you can have asking him questions that exposes him for the fake that he is. It's not good for popularity, but there are few things that have more nerd pleasure than making pretenders squirm in their seats using knowledge and logic. Mass endorphins to the Asperger Lobe.
if JS were that terrible, it and the browser and the web (or Web 2) wouldn't have taken off.
JS is fine as a light-duty "glue" language and it satisfies that niche fairly well, but for complex applications or libraries, a compiled or strong-typed language is often a better choice. Their "anal" features prevent a lot of problems for larger or layered projects.
JS has been stretched beyond its practical limit as the demand for fancier or desktop-like GUI's pushes the UI envelope on the browser side.
On the client side there are not many practical language alternatives, but since on the server side we do have choice, we can and do choose NOT go with JavaScript.
And while sharing code on the back-end and front-end is a nice option, the volume of sharing opportunities is not nearly enough to justify JS on the server side.
What we really need is a GUI-friendly browser and/or standard so that common GUI idioms can be called up declaratively rather than rely on GUI libraries and actions being sent over to the client.
I would also like to add that many of the arguments used by Node.js proponents resemble those used by assembler language proponents when higher-level languages started eating into their profession. I'm not betting on a pro-hardware stance for most development tasks.
To frank, most of Node.JS is hyped bullshit in my opinion. I've been in long threaded debates with proponents, and it seems a solution seeking a problem in most of the real world. Machines are cheaper than human labor economically. Buy fatter servers rather than pay a premium to rent or retrain human heads. Besides, servers get faster over time, humans don't.
Earth rocks with fossils on the moon are probably rare enough that lots of sifting will be required. Robotic survey & collection missions are much better suited for such a task.
It's too much money to pay a human in space garb to pick up each rock and go, "This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No..."
Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Laden didn't carry out the attacks himself: he got grunts to it. Most of the rank-and-file attackers or not well-off. Focusing on high-profile leaders in the org is misleading. Then again, I expect that from N.R.
The US may have to allow more immigrants in order to be competitive with China and perhaps other populous countries in a potential cyber-war. It's more or less a game of man-power. Either that, you siphon techies off of other fields. Maybe the "secret plan" is to send all non-military IT work to India, freeing the rest to be cyber warriors? Our trade deficit will be Jupiter-sized, though.
Your question is not specific enough. What laws are they ignoring? How about a scenario.
The reality of healthcare politics is that a majority have and still do want some kind of gov't managed insurance to pool risk. Only about 1/4 want to go back to the way things were before ACA (link below).
IF a political entity rants to change or repeal it, they need to first specify in detail what to replace it with or change.
Every known non-trivial change will sock it to one group of people in order to benefit another, and thus wouldn't be an easy sell.
Griping is easy; presenting viable alternatives is not.
And each state CAN run it's own exchange site if it doesn't like the federal one.
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...
It is true that people who die of curable illnesses can't frown
Tell me private insurance plans never F'd up billing etc?
And then there are intentional games. Telecoms sneak goofy fees into our bills all the time. Why do their "mistakes" always add fees instead of remove them?
Republicans are just drama queens with O-care. "They made a tax boo boo, the sky is falling! Gov't is Beelzebub! Arm yourself with garlic bullets!"
Those who complain deserve the goat-se edition of the wormhole
or..."Kimmy ticks off Sony by re-editing the flick to actually make it funny"
It's not all-or-nothing. Some aggression is necessary, too little or too much is harmful. The destructive power that a small group can obtain is getting too great. Society ceases to function when the rotten apples can spoil the entire barrel instead of merely a fraction of it.
Old-style weapons didn't allow the bad apples to do too much damage most of the time. There were flukes like Genghis Khan, but newer weapons allow too many to be Genghis Khan's also, or at least have similar destructive power.
When 1 out of 10 million can do Genghis Khan things, civilization recovers and survives. But not if one out of every 10 thousand is. Especially if population is denser. Newer weapons give jerks too damned much power.
Perhaps we should refine our use of "aggression" here.
In any society, we cannot all have our way on every issue. We will be subject to rules created by somebody or something partly or mostly outside of our personal control. It's a necessary part of civilization. Some civilizations use democracy to make such rule decisions, some use autocratic rule, and many something in between to make the rules.
The key issue is HOW individuals or smaller groups deal with rules they don't personally like. I consider the "non violent" solution to be either working within the framework of the system (such as campaigning for change or going to court), or civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a middle-of-road approach where one breaks relatively minor laws to get attention. But generally nobody gets hurt, just inconvenienced.
The third approach is anarchy and terrorism, where violence is used to either get attention or directly force institutional change by intimidation or self-imposed rule.
The forth approach is suicidal annihilation. It's a form of, "If I can't get my way, then NOBODY gets their way."
We have too much of the 3rd and 4th approach on this planet. Too many humans are wired or have natural tendencies toward approach 3 and 4.
(It could be argued there are times and places for approach #3, but we still have too much of it.)
So it's reinventing quantum physics: it's fuzzy until you look at it more carefully. P.S. don't look at cats.
No. Automobile performance is relatively easy to measure. Medical service is not because there are gajillion different types of treatment. If your brain surgery goes awry, you are too feeble to sue. And it's difficult to shop around when in pain. Plus, much about cars is regulated, such as safety.
If a product or service grows beyond a certain complexity, and/or the down-sides are long-term, then the consumer is often ill-equipped to make good decisions. Each individual is re-inventing trial-and-error lessons, which is poor factoring of knowledge, and therefore economically inefficient. There's no "reuse".
And quality evaluation companies have proven bribe-able or manipulate-able when their statements affect enough sales. For example, if bribed enough, they may be encouraged to skip evaluating a shady product altogether, and its legal.
The US has had poor service relative to other countries. They only thing the US did better on was cutting edge research, but the benefits of those often went to the well-to-do.
iMonica
It's marketing speak for....marketing speak.
Seeing what exactly? Most of the health providers are private companies. O-care just ensures everybody pays into the system and that the providers correctly provide at least a minimum standard levels of service. If you wish to privatize parts of this mix, what parts would it be?
I agree it's easier said than done. I would note that much of the Federal government already contracts out routine and easy-to-define services. It's one of the reason why the average salary of a Federal employee is higher than average: many repetitious and simpler tasks are already contacted out. The remaining Federal employees are largely overseers and inspectors, which generally require more credentials and experience, resulting in a high average salary. (Rush L. fails to mention this in his salary rants.)
But devil is in the details, and without specific scenarios or situations, it's hard to comment on the article.
I can envision cases where the privacy of gov't employees is put at risk if you publish who did what and when. Being too far under a microscope can make one over-focus on CYA instead of getting the job done efficiently.
Yes, but think of the fun you can have asking him questions that exposes him for the fake that he is. It's not good for popularity, but there are few things that have more nerd pleasure than making pretenders squirm in their seats using knowledge and logic. Mass endorphins to the Asperger Lobe.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Dark Gravity, Dark Holes, Dark Data, where will it end?...
That product name makes me cringe.
Well, I find it difficult to be so enthusiastic about our new Congress.
JS is fine as a light-duty "glue" language and it satisfies that niche fairly well, but for complex applications or libraries, a compiled or strong-typed language is often a better choice. Their "anal" features prevent a lot of problems for larger or layered projects.
JS has been stretched beyond its practical limit as the demand for fancier or desktop-like GUI's pushes the UI envelope on the browser side.
On the client side there are not many practical language alternatives, but since on the server side we do have choice, we can and do choose NOT go with JavaScript.
And while sharing code on the back-end and front-end is a nice option, the volume of sharing opportunities is not nearly enough to justify JS on the server side.
What we really need is a GUI-friendly browser and/or standard so that common GUI idioms can be called up declaratively rather than rely on GUI libraries and actions being sent over to the client.
Correction: "To be frank".
I would also like to add that many of the arguments used by Node.js proponents resemble those used by assembler language proponents when higher-level languages started eating into their profession. I'm not betting on a pro-hardware stance for most development tasks.
To frank, most of Node.JS is hyped bullshit in my opinion. I've been in long threaded debates with proponents, and it seems a solution seeking a problem in most of the real world. Machines are cheaper than human labor economically. Buy fatter servers rather than pay a premium to rent or retrain human heads. Besides, servers get faster over time, humans don't.
C# also offers parallelism constructs.
Earth rocks with fossils on the moon are probably rare enough that lots of sifting will be required. Robotic survey & collection missions are much better suited for such a task.
It's too much money to pay a human in space garb to pick up each rock and go, "This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No...This from Earth? No..."