Oh really?

Source: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Eh. I heard it was a gimmick by a sociologist who is practicing conjunction without a license.

My kingdom for a mod-point.

But now I'm sad, cause I miss him so much.

An unhealthy love for Google products? Wouldn't posting to /. be sufficient for diagnosis?

The issue is actually pretty similar to that with declining returns in oil production. Groundwater replenishment is certainly still happening. Similarly, the processes which produce oil are still occurring. The issue is that we are consuming much faster than we are replenishing. Groundwater, depending on the depth of the aquifer and the material in which it exists, can take years to thousands of years to be replenished. Oil takes millions.

The reason that ocean levels might rise from groundwater is that we are bringing it up faster than it can go back down. All that water has to go somewhere.

It's worse than that. Imagine the enhanced DRM this would enable. "Sorry, We have detected more than the allotted number of audience members. Your account has been charged $9.99 per extra viewer."

Idea! The goal of airport security isn't to actually prevent terrorist attacks on planes, but, rather, to make flying so inconvenient that only terrorists are willing to fly. Then, bam, stinger missile.

Terrorism: solved

Certainly, there are legitimate non-fallacious reasons to stay, but "but to make the lives count" isn't one of them.

That aside, when has nation building ever been successful? Even in Korea, the US didn't so much build a nation as put a million landmine buffer between the "good guys" and the "bad guys". In order for staying to produce a better outcome than pulling out, you need a reason to believe that you can be successful and history is pretty pessimistic on that front.

And that, my friend, is called the sunk cost fallacy.

I'm hardly hand-waving. Read the rest of my post (the part you didn't care to quote).

As a college educated individual in a STEM discipline, I'd feel perfectly confident with homeschooling in science or math courses. Have me try to teach a history class and the results would be comical at best. The idea that John Q. Public, with nothing more than a textbook for the class, can be as effective at education as someone with Masters (required in my state, YMMV) is indicative of the dismissive attitude we tend to take towards education.

Some notable stats: among homeschooling fathers, ~32% have "Some College/No Degree" or less. Mothers do slightly worse with ~33% having the same education level. If we include through BA/BS (which is unlikely to be in something relevant to teaching) the numbers are even more stark. At a time when we are demanding more of our teachers, are we also going to say that a few classes at the community college is sufficient to teach high school calculus?

Source

Having met "homeschool parents" (I was homeschooled for a bit, growing up) I can honestly say that no matter how shitty the schools are, they are far and away better than most homeschoolers. It can be done well and with those people I have no complaint, but, in my experience, those parents are less concerned with quality education that with isolating children from "corrupting influences" or more thoroughly impressing religious doctrine in the guise of education.

Not necessarily. I'd be willing to bet they share a parent somewhere along the line.

My point exactly. SSL (and a handful of other techniques) will alert the user to something untoward going on, but the lion's share of those users will ignore/not understand the threat.

I've seen some novel approaches to working around SSL but most will tip off the end-user. I run a throttled honeypot on my home network with some ad-injection. I get a couple dollars a month from it, the neighbors get free internet, and it seriously cut-down on the number of auth-attempts against the secured side of my router. Most of the injectors just catch and sniff packets for webpages (trying to inject into, say, SSH would bork everything) and inserts an ad frame. I'll have to test how my setup handles a secured session but I've seen instances of SSL sessions being wrapped in a framed unsecured page (mostly at hotels and airports). Newer browsers (Firefox and Chrome anyway, no Windows box to test on) will pitch a fit about this but if you're connecting to an unsecured network, I doubt security is much of a priority.

I'm pretty sure it's just some poorly done translation.

pretty easily becomes

if English is not your first language.