But that tape isn't good for 20 years. And you're leaving off the cost of having Iron Mountain periodically bringing those tapes back, someone sticking them in tape drives, verifying the integrity of the backups, and shipping them back to Iron Mountain. At that point Glacier is dirt cheap at $0.01/GB.

Also, inbound data to Amazon is always free. Your upstream to them is free as well, as you're already paying for an Internet connection. Don't want to use your internet connection? Ship 8 4TB drives to Amazon and they'll load the data into Glacier at their facility for you.

If you're not verifying the data periodically (i.e. bitrot), it might as well not exist.

Disclaimer: I store several PBs of data in Glacier.

So incorporate your affiliate business in Delaware. Problem solved.

Hard drive storage > tape storage.

How quickly can you verify the integrity of your off-site tape backup? I can verify my hot backups in S3/Glacier in seconds.

I used to work on data taking for the CMS detector at the LHC. We were using Storagetek tape silos [http://computing.fnal.gov/cdtracks/2009/january/images/robot.jpg] for long-term storage of data at Tier1.

Tape allows for cheaper storage and large capacities, but you're then fighting contention issues (there are only so many robotic arms and tape drives for your tape library) as well as having data on tapes go bad without knowing it. When data is on disk, I can at least verify it immediately. Bit rot is definitely alive and well on tape.

So we provide incentives to doctors from other countries to come here (India, South America), and train them to US standards (most already are, as they came to the US to train in their profession). Not enough doctors? There are 7 billion people in the world. It's just a matter of getting them to move here or training them.

People are working on real problems. You are merely bitching.

Fact: OP's insurance was cheaper before and is now more expensive. Their previous plan is no longer available, because it doesn't meet ACA requirements.

It's not condescending at all; its completely rational that people had no idea what they bought or paid for with regards to their health insurance. That's the point of raising the minimum level of coverage. But go on! Everyone should have the god-give right to be ignorant and complain about something they have a limited understanding of!

Fact: People are disadvantaged against corporations; government's role is to protect their citizens, even from corporations.

Because they don't want to wait? That's the point. There is a minimum level of coverage for everyone. If you have disposable income and decide you don't want to wait on a procedure that is life threatening, you can go somewhere else and spend your disposable cash on it.

Tell me again why people fly to India to have procedures done instead of having them done in the US? Oh yeah, because American healthcare is ridiculously overpriced for a poor quality of care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism_in_India

"Medical tourism is a growing sector in India. India’s medical tourism sector is expected to experience an annual growth rate of 30%, making it a $2 billion industry by 2015.[1][2] As medical treatment costs in the developed world balloon - with the United States leading the way - more and more Westerners are finding the prospect of international travel for medical care increasingly appealing. An estimated 150,000 of these travel to India for low-priced healthcare procedures every year.[3]"

http://www.nanex.net/flashcrash/ongoingresearch.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-26/speed-traders-meet-nightmare-on-elm-street-with-nanex.html

Nanex is the one creating this data. They're a small boutique market data firm out of the Northern Chicago suburbs. Their data showed that someone was leaking the Fed data a few seconds early.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/health-care-costs-_n_3998425.html

http://kff.org/health-costs/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

I'm glad you base your outlook on your anecdotal evidence. You're part of the problem.

Not only does every first world country other than the US have some sort of universal healthcare/single payer system, the US spends more than every other country for healthcare for a lower level of care/poor outcomes.

USA! USA!

Because previously, those "cheap" plans covered almost nothing and were pure profit for insurance companies:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/1029/Millions-losing-health-plans-under-Obamacare.-Did-president-mislead-video

People are now paying for coverage they should have been previously receiving.

A fan boy? Again, hardly. I did make about ~$600K off Tesla stock by buying it around ~$17/share, selling most of it at $190, and then buying it back up at $127. I'm pretty happy about that, but that doesn't make me a fan boy.

Musk used his own money to fund a rocket company. It's his fault if some of the launches on the manifest are government-purchased? Lets not even begin to discuss how incompetent and dysfunctional NASA is as a government institution.

And a Tesla Model S a Lotus? This isn't even arguing over. It was rated by Consumer Reports as their best car. Ever. It was rated by the NTHSA as their safest car. Ever. The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt aren't even in the same class of vehicle.

Feel free to bitch on an internet forum. It'll make you feel better, but it doesn't change the world nor make you any more wealthy.

A messiah? Hardly. Just a hard working guy who shuttles cargo and satellites to space and is revolutionizing transportation.

What did you do today?

Since when is paying off your government loan 9 years early a bad thing?

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/early-repayment-tesla%E2%80%99s-atvm-loan

Because some believe everyone has the right to spend their resources the way they want, even inefficiently (I disagree with this viewpoint).

The way you fix this, of course, are market incentives. You raise the gas tax to promote fuel efficient vehicles. You raise the cost of fossil fuel produced electricity to promote renewable energy installations.

Rule 1 of economics: Incentives Matter