China, perhaps (there might be regulatory issues associated with moving US loans overseas, even if China had banks chartered in the US), but probably not Chinese banks which would be interested in relatively solid loan portfolios. US securities are still seen as guaranteed payoffs, so even if the economy sours, they can still be as certain as possible of a return. Loan assets don't have that luxury.

However, I've had concerns about the Chinese economy for a few years. They're much more shadowy about these things than Western government, and it's hard to say how much money they have. The Chinese government may be hiding a fiscal nightmare that is worse in percentages than Greece and will certainly have more worldwide impact than a complete collapse of the Greek economy.

I said "crap" not "words".

i got to fuckstick my eyes glazed over and i just couldn't anymore

sorry, you're too remedial, just not worth the effort

Not directly no. It basically goes like this: Union regulations require that the certain members can administer medications.
CFOs dictate that they charge for those people's time, but to increase the bill they break out each medication separately. So the nurse that is there to administer 5 medications gets to charge up the time 5x's (once for each medication). So if it took 5 minutes to administer the medication, the result is a 25 minute charge.
Now, unions influence which members (RN vs regular, but qualified, nurse) can administer the medications thereby influencing the cost of the medication through the time allocation since the hospital has no choice but to use more expensive staff to administer the medication.

What percentage of a hospital's expenses are made up by total labor costs? Go ahead, take a guess.

Now take a guess at the differential between the bill presented to a patient paying their own bill and an insurance company.

The reason it costs that much is a systemic issue; solve that actual issue and you'll solve a lot of the health care cost issues. Only part of that issue is related to unions, but it still is a significant factor.

You make a lot of the $19 that a patient is charged for an aspirin. How much do you think the average nurse makes, and do you believe it is too much? Do you also believe doctors are overpaid? Do you also believe the corporations that run for-profit hospitals are making too much profit?

You mistake the price a corporation charges for a service with the cost of the labor for providing that service. You try to put the exorbitant cost of health care on the people who are providing that care, when in fact, the most expensive parts of health care are impacted barely at all by labor.

but you really should attribute the stupid scenario to the person who suggested it (Hint: it were you).

Quote it to me.

Do I have to give English lessons? It's annoying paperwork they may not want to do, but they know it's a very good idea so they do it anyway. It's just like not wanting to brush your teeth.

WTF is your issue? The original question (go on, look it up, the words and thread hasn't changed) was "how to enable permanent swap" . The answer was, and still is, set the correct level of swappiness for the swap

"swapon" is the correct answer, yours is an answer to a different question (that was not asked) about tuning it.

Your failure to understand and conflation of "I dinna calculate RAM demand" with "lucky I have swap" is your own problem. Have you heard of planning?

You really are pushing that "did you think my tech creds are playing video games?" line pretty hard aren't you?
Obviously swap is part of planning for when more RAM gets used than you have calculated - stop acting like you got all your tech skillz from playing video games and try wandering back to reality.

Grow the fuck up. What are you, 16?

So says the guy who led with the platform hate attack and followed with the weirdness about systems turned off. What is your game here? Why go rabid over little quotes from linux memory management for newbies?

Which is a sensible thing to do here. After all, most decisions which harm people are made by people concerning their own health and safety.

So, do we suspect mere incompetence, or is the OCP one of those 'open' projects where the lead is all gung-ho about industry collaboration and openness and such; so long as they are losing to somebody else, and then more or less immediately drops all but the barest vestiges of 'open' once they have the improvements they came for?

I certainly can't rule out the former, especially since a bunch of preening software narcissists who "move fast and break things" and are proud of it don't seem like naturals for either project management or hardware engineering; but I'd also be unsurprised if this was Facebook's 'shit, Google is hammering us on hardware and operations costs per ad served, we need to beat some fear into our vendors...' project, and now that it has succeeded in doing that, there really isn't any advantage for them in bothering to improve, maintain, or prevent from being watered down into meaninglessness, the 'spec;. Any guesses?

"I get it; some asshole said he was open; but he was only open for business."

I don't know if it's a good idea or not(probably depends on who you are, and I'm sure that there will be some people who chose incorrectly); but is it really a surprise that OCP would be doing their testing on the cheap 'n cheerful side of things?

It was my understanding that their premise, from the beginning, was that existing hardware vendors were excessively focused on adding costly, thermally demanding, and often proprietary, features at the hardware level that were unnecessary if you were willing to compensate for their absence in your software design.

There is obviously some level of reliability below which no compensation at the software level is possible(if you can't run the algorithm for detecting errors because it keeps glitching out, it's probably not going to work); but the impression they always conveyed was that many of the more sophisticated reliability mechanisms are really features aimed at people who are substantially less able to cope with failure; and are therefore willing to pay substantially more for hardware that can invisibly paper over a variety of moderately serious failures and allow the software on top to run without incident; rather than buying lots of cheap hardware that has a risk of going down in a screaming heap.

So long as nobody gets any stupid optimistic ideas, I don't really see the issue. Sure, if Facebook were about sending men to mars, they should seriously consider having three CPUs running in lockstep and voting on all operations and so on; but this project is about delivering as many ad impressions per dollar as possible; no reason to get worked up over the occasional glitch.

I'm not the one (or perhaps it's more than one?) posting a page full of crap every time.

What punishment? He killed himself before he was punished, so we'll never know.

why are you commenting when you don't even understand the fucking topic?

http://thinkprogress.org/justi...

http://reason.com/archives/201...

http://www.newyorker.com/news/...

it helps to understand the bare basic facts of a topic before you open your ignorant mouth

please educate yourself first next time, then talk

you completely misrepresented my point or showed that you did not understand it

meaning you failed to read my comment or you failed to understand my comment

you can't make accusations about anyone else's conversational acumen if you lack the intellectual honesty or intellectual ability to even have a fucking coherent conversation

The bond purchases are at trick that might get used more often in part because of the slow rate at which additional money enters circulation. Social Security has done it for decades, but that's been even more of an accounting trick because the first step of the money stays within a smaller group (namely, retirees and the disabled). The profits from the Fed can get paid out to government contractors, employees, tax refunds, and anything else the government chooses to spend its money on.

There's a tipping point, of course, but I think it's far above what's being used now. Still, QE purchases ended last year because the Fed believed the economy to have stabilized sufficiently, so if it does get used again, it's going to make a lot of news, and may rattle the markets.