Condescend all you want, but mandatory insurance produces higher premiums and lower payouts regardless of how well it is regulated. In fact, regulation only increases administrative regulatory costs instead of reducing premiums. However, you missed a subtle point. Most of the newly insured will lose money on this even if they get sick and will receive insurance payments to cover some of their medical costs. Insurance companies are now in the business of delaying treatment. Approvals, medical justifications, reviews, etc... it's all there to stretch the time between doctors' ordering procedures and patients getting the treatment. It lowers the treatment received per unit of time. And it's gotten significantly worse since Obama Care was passed. You can't possibly think that calling a mandate to buy something that lowers the quality of medical care and increases costs can be justifiably called "help."

Being forced to buy insurance is not "help." It's being forced to buy insurance. It may be a good idea for some, but calling it "help" is misleading. Most people with this insurance will see more of their money spent on premiums than they would receive in payments even when they do get sick and need medical care. The medical care savings accounts would have been much more helpful for most people in reducing their medical costs and in forcing them into long-term responsible behavior. But we couldn't do that. That would be too Republican an idea.

Most modern "computers" are not metal. Heck I usually run 5-6 instances of different virtual machines just at home. And that's at home. At work, it goes up to 15-20 at any one time. Any server needs to be designed to go up and down as quickly as possible and to have 1 instance of it running as transparently as 100 instances. Long start up times and monolithic servers whose start up can be observed by a human being are the thing of the 1990's. The world has moved on. Most cell phones today are more powerful computers than any server built in 2001. Quick spinning up of multiple instances of virtual servers is a requirement in today's world -- not a "nice thing to have."

sex lives of other executives... Ok, give me a break. Is this some pathetic attempt to make apple bashing seem like gay bashing? No one asked the question and no one thought more or less of Steve Jobs because of his rather tumultuous sex life. So I'd say stick your announcements to the product line unless, of course, you are trying to divert attention from your failing product line.

Because they reinvent the wheel. They themselves are only necessary because they have fooled the world into thinking that they are. Code (any code written in text) is best written by machines. It can be just as easily generated once the problems are well-posed. It's just that most people don't realize it, yet. The math brains have the know-how to state the complex problems. They just don't all know that it's what they should be doing. Once they do, the code monkeys will go the way of all the people doing arithmetic really, really well. It's not an insult. It's just that certain skills can be automated. And all, without exception, skills of the code monkeys can automated my grammar notwithstanding.

The conflict in modern programming is between code monkeys and math brains. Both are dismissive of the other. The code monkeys think the math brains overcomplicate things. The math brains think the code monkeys don't understand the problems they are solving.

Poorly designed projects provide more job security and require more labor to maintain. They are managed by people who don't understand that their projects are sinking or do understand it, but don't understand why that's happening. And, of course, they require more employees. The people who manage them select people who are willing to suffer the pain of being inefficient because those doing the selection don't understand the benefits of increased efficiency. The result is that more jobs is not an indication of a better education. More jobs going to graduates of these schools can very well be an indication of their alumni having been educated in how things were done before better methods were invented.

This sounds like an interrupt conflict. If the USB device and audio device share the interrupt and (because of hardware misconfiguratin) pluging in/out of usb causes sound device's interrupt handler to run, it could be reading garbage data and using it as the new config settings.

It doesn't sound wrongful. As a juror, I'd never side with someone who insists on a right to say whatever they want to their employer's customers. And it sounds like the person in question worked for a Comcast vendor.

What abuses? I am no fan of monopoly utilities (water, cable, electric, etc.), but if the employee got nasty, Comcast can't be forced to use a vendor they don't want to use. First amendment right is a right to speak. It's not a right to be heard.

That's not how the world works. Those people may simply have priorities different from your priorities and could be frustrated that their priorities are given less weight than yours. It doesn't make them wrong in disagreeing with you. How they react to that frustration is what makes them ass holes.

Star Bucks

What's more important is that you remember the name Eli Whitney. Although you are clearly trying to change the topic by bringing up one of the few times when technology reduced the quality of human condition. Why not mention Norman Borlaug instead? Especially, in the context of this article. Do people think that discovering photo-electric effect was a genius or do they call every genius an "Einstein"?

The fact that their names are already forgotten is not just an injustice to Ciara Judge, Émer Hickey and Sophie Healy-Thow. It is, once again, an attempt to put the political context (their nationality and gender) above the actual achievement. Just try for a second doing the same thing with a headline about a movie actor. As in "... a famous California performer was sentenced to rehab today..." Does it seem like you are telling the full story there? Of course, not.

Science is first and foremost a human endeavor. And any attempt to dehumanize it denigrates it. I have always maintained that every scientist and every mathematician must have it stipulated in writtng that their name appear first in any headline of any article about them if they agree to an interview on which the article is to be based. And if you really don't think people care, then tell me why the names of the actors who play parts in science fiction are known while the names of actual scientists who make discoveries are not known?

Just so you understand, this is only the case in the US. It is very much the result of how the press reports on science. It is not the result of some general trend in human thought about science. It is also fairly new. You yourself mentioned Eli Whitney. Einstein's name is a household item. This is all a result of how scientists were genuinely liked years ago. We went through a cultural period of thinking of scientists as "mad scientists" if they were good at what they did.

And it's not as if science itself was such a boring topic. People will memorize and talk about sports statistics (which are of no consequence) and talk about athletes as if they new them even if they never met them. But the same is not true of science and scientists. Why? Exclusively because of the press. Slashdot editors should know better.

No one was even discussing whether it was accurate or not. It's just not the topic of the conversation. The topic that I set was the dehumanization of scientists by the way the headlines which describe their accomplishments are structured in pop media.