Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:How I see it... (Score 5, Informative) 1144

So which is it? Are you too stupid to figure this out for yourself? Or are you a liar, intending to deceive the people reading this site?

Well, there's three kinds of lies; Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can quote yours, he can quote his, and nobody will be any better informed when you two are done pissing in the wind while yelling at each other.

On a very basic level, Obamacare supporters have the position that poor people, who don't have enough money to afford health care, should be forced into buying health care plus the costs of program administration overhead from the government. On it's face, it seems pretty obvious this will mean that people will be worse off; If they couldn't afford it before, how are they going to afford it now?

The flip of this is though that health care costs aren't a simple x + y = z equation. The reason a lot of health care is so high is because people are uninsured or underinsured and so they only go to the hospital when the symptoms become severe enough to qualify as an emergency. Emergency room visits aren't just expensive because of labor and resource costs... they're expensive because you have to have enough spare capacity to handle the very worst case scenario -- in other words, you're paying for excess capacity to have a safety margin. And many of those visits wouldn't be necessary if people were having proper, planned, preventative care instead.

If people could go to the doctor whenever they needed to, on a flat rate system (not per visit, not with deductibles, not with all this complicated bullshit), you'd probably see costs drop off by a significant portion. Obamacare may accomplish this change in patient behavior. If it does... the aggregate healthcare costs will drop.

The second part of the equation, and the part Obamacare doesn't address, is that the current system we have with health insurance, auditing, billing records -- an absolutely massive and complex system that covers up a lot of flaws and makes investigation incredibly time consuming and difficult to the point you need a forensic accountant to break down the average person's bill, means that the administrative costs make up a huge portion of health care. Do you really think it costs $250 to run a urinalysis? Or to do bloodwork? No, it doesn't. The supplies and labor is much less than that. But because of a massive billing system, combined with over a dozen layers of auditing and reporting, means that administrative costs take a big bite out.

It is this second problem that will get worse under Obamacare. How much worse, we won't know until the system is deployed, and the initial kinks worked out so we have a stable baseline to draw comparisons from (You never judge a system based on it's initial performance -- there will be lots of bugs and training costs up front that simply can't be anticipated. You have to look at it once it enters the maintenance phase to evaluate the true cost of it correctly).

As you can see, the problem is much more complex than just pulling some numbers out your ass (You, and Forbes magazine, both guilty as charged). We don't have the numbers yet to know whether this is going to save money, or cost money.

All we can really debate at this moment in time is the ethics of having a national healthcare system. For my part; I think it's long overdue. We need it. I'm not sure this is the best implimentation, but... whether it succeeds or fails, it will tell us a lot about what we need to know to make better decisions about health care as a country down the line. It is a good experiment. It should be carried out without delay, and the results published.

Comment Re:Like the reporter has a clue... (Score 5, Insightful) 278

I'd be more concerned with a bunch of cell phones, each with a GPS receiver built in, interfering with the aircraft's GPS based systems.

Erm, for a guy who managed to get most of the technical detail right, you flubbed this one pretty bad; a GPS receiver is just that, a receiver. With the exception of the RF front end, it's all processed inside a chunk of silicon. So there should be very, very little interference from one, or even fifty, of them, unless there's a defect in the cell phone itself that is causing EMI -- something unintentionally functioning as an antenna.

All electronic devices emit EMI, but suggesting that the GPS receiver portion of a cell phone is any more or less capable of causing interference to the GPS signal absent any testing to support this, is flat out bogus. Anything can interfere with a GPS signal; A GPS receiver is no more or less likely to do so -- they don't have crystals in them that oscillate at the same frequency like old shortwave radios. Unless you can provide some documentation that the design of all cell phone GPS receivers has some flaw that causes it to emit enough EMI to disrupt the same signals its designed to receive, I have to call this myth busted.

Comment Re:This is new? (Score -1, Flamebait) 193

You missed the point. Reemul is making an oblique reference to the 1972 Olympics where 11 Jewish athletes were murdered; look up "Munich massacre" on wikipedia.

You know, it's considered poor form to make an oblique reference to something that happened before most of the people on the site were likely born. The only point being made here is that he's gotten so old and senile that he's forgotten we have these things called hyperlinks now to help members of the audience who may not be aware of a cultural reference to an incident from over forty years ago. Having read details of the incident now, it would seem this already vague reference may have been to the IOC's handling of the PR post-incident.

They apparently didn't want to mention the people who were captured and murdered at the hands of their captors, and allowed 10 of the Arab countries who were present at the games to fly their flags at full mast, while the remaining countries opted for half-mast to honor the dead. This is apparently the source of the old guy's anger; Which, having read news reports, seems unwarranted. When you run an international event, you cannot possibly cover a political crisis in a way that satisfies everyone. The IOC played Switzerland (figuratively, not literally) -- it didn't take sides. Naturally, some people can't understand why this is the right move, and get angry. Like this old guy.

I do not see how this was anti-semetic in any way. The IOC did not endorse the terrorist attack. In all reports I found online, it seems they tried to remain as neutral as possible, treating the games as 'neutral territory'. They honored as many of the requests of the participants as they reasonably could, without giving up their neutrality.

Comment Re:Disappearing Bitcoins (Score -1, Flamebait) 294

As you have indicated a preference for brevity in your sarcastic fuck you, I shall in turn be brief in my own.

This isn't a weather simulator where the numbers are going to be raised to the hundredth power, it's basic, linear algebra here.

False, and False.

Name one that didn't just collect tiny pieces at a time but actually used floating point errors.

Y2K; A lot of time variables use floating point (decimal) instead of integer. As I understand it, that was an expensive fix that caused financial chaos. As well, there's a detailed explanation about exactly why floating point should never be used in financial transactions, regardless of the number of decimal points the library can be accurate to. And here's the wiki explaining how these problems simply cannot be overcome, it's a theoretical impossibility.

then it would be handled uniformly and that won't be an issue.

A computer that consistently gets the wrong answer is not any less wrong because it does so uniformly.

Explain. And don't just shit out a wall of text that evades the subject like you usually do.

I try to be as specific as possible to avoid confusion, but in the future, to honor your request, I will simply say "Fuck you, you're wrong, good day sir." Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Fuck you. You're wrong. Good day sir.

Comment Re:This is new? (Score -1, Flamebait) 193

Face it, the IOC is perfectly OK with corruption, oppression, censorship, and spying, as long as committee members get their payoffs, a pleasant facade is maintained while cameras are rolling, and nobody but Jews get killed.

You know, Slashdot really has taken a dive lately. We've got an anti-semetic comment hiding in plain sight, and yet this racist asshole got upmodded not once, but twice so far. And the kicker is there's no evidence presented that the IOC is anti-semetic. Of course, there's plenty of evidence about corruption and censorship, and committee members getting paid off. That's all legit; And the rest is on the level with them being an accomplice to it.

But the conclusion is also bogus. Russia doesn't "wish" they could have the "all encompassing monitoring that Beijing" had. They're allies with China. China produces tons of telecom; And I'm sure they'd be only too happy to help their ally to the west with that problem if Russia really was putting that on a 'wish list'.

Small problem though -- Russia does have the money. And they are building that surveillance network right now. Without help. Worse, while your tin foil hat "They're monitoring all the things!" might be somewhat accurate... you're utterly lacking in a good conclusion as to why. I mean, besides being evil for the sake of being evil, because it's, you know, fun and shit.

The real reason why Russia is building this network up is because historically Russia has been hyper-paranoid about foreigners. You know, that whole business with Stalin, and the USSR, and the cold war... it had a small effect on their psyche. But also, Russia doesn't have free speech; And right now it's dealing with large numbers of people protesting over Putin's one man crusade against the gay community, and the Olympics has been named as a primary target for these protesters to get the word out about Russia's oppression of these people.

So they're preparing the nets, setting the traps, and building nearby warehouses that will become jails with the flip of a switch, in anticipation of having to move a groundswell of its own citizens trying to ram their way into public view at the event. And Putin... oooh, he doesn't like that. Not. One. Bit.

So cool it with the anti-semetic crap -- this isn't about the jews, it's about the gays, and while the IOC may be a morally corrupt piece of shit for an organization, they haven't yet turned terrorist, and there is no evidence they're planning on crossing that line anytime soon. If nothing else, it would hurt their profits.

Comment Re:Why are you surprized? (Score 0) 193

This news doesn't come as a shock to me. Actually, I halfway respect the fact that they admit it flat out.

Yeah, but would you still feel that way once you knew the reasons for it?

They're concerned that people might try that "free speech" thing, which has been a problem ever since Putin decided to wage a private war on gay people... and many are calling for a boycott of the olympics or protesting at the scene to raise awareness of the problem. That surveillance, which includes filtering technology and location awareness on cell phones, as well as deep state inspection, exists for but one purpose:

To make sure everything looks just peachy for the press cameras, while the 10,000 other cameras hunt for anything that could spoil that rosey worldview... like protesters.

Comment Re:Money for his defense (Score 0) 294

Judging from what you're saying, you'd probably enjoy Breaking Bad. You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about the way it handles its subject matter.

I don't think so. If there was a TV show that showed how actual drug production worked in sufficient detail, it would be shut down by the government because it would essentially be a handbook on how to do it, being delivered to millions of televisions during prime time. I'm sorry, but common sense trumps your understanding of a fictional TV show.

Comment Re:Money for his defense (Score 0) 294

And you know this how? You're either making shit up to appear smart, or a genuine idiot bragging about her actual extensive experience working for a drug cartel on a public web forum where your IP can be easily traced - on a story discussing a drug bust that ultimately resulted from the accused posting on a forum, no less.

Or option c: I have had friends who got involved in the wrong people, and helped to get them out of it, with the help of law enforcement and a lot of time at a law library where, reviewing case after case of drug busts of all varieties searching for a technicality, I may have inadvertently learned a few things as well the good old fashioned way: With primary research.

Either way, epic fail.

I could not have stated your failure any more succinctly.

Comment Re:Money for his defense (Score 2) 294

ou do realize that intentionally ignoring good entertainment doesn't make you some kind of hero, right?

You do realize that 'good entertainment' is an entirely subjective thing, whereas my explanation about why providing fictional examples to buttress a position about an actual, realworld event, was not.

You just come off as an idiot putting up a resistance just to

Just to what? Try and be funny and informative at the same time? Just to listen to hipsters amongst us like yourself that find the empty chattering of TV with 30% commercials dumped into your brain "entertainment" and can't understand why everybody doesn't join them so they have to mock them?

Comment Re:Money for his defense (Score 1) 294

The big mistake hipsters make is assuming anyone cares about how hipster they are. We were talking about encryption, virtual currencies, legal tactics, and as usual where people gather, the occasional pop culture reference.

A hipster would have said they were watching it before it was cool, not snarking about how they didn't watch it at all, and then proceeding to explain why. However, despite getting all the details wrong, you managed a remarkably good rant.

Comment Re:Who cares about? (Score 5, Interesting) 262

Microsoft interfeces? Sounds like shitty interfaces to me!

They are still bitter that they had the idea for a tablet long before Apple, but when they announced it, it was to a big yawn. When Apple did it, everyone pissed themselves like excited dogs, and then when Microsoft tried again... everyone said they stole the idea from Apple. Microsoft usually can see the train coming long before it arrives. For some reason though, they rarely manage to get on the train. Execution and follow-through has always been a problem for the organization; Especially now that the CEO is a dancing monkey-man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Kind of sad, really. Apple continues to gain marketshare and is making more money with it's 1 out of 8 people using Apple products than Microsoft is with 7 out of 8 using their OS. How incompetent do you have to be to lose when you've got 8 times the marketshare? :\

Comment Re:Officials learn terrorist and criminals use cas (Score 2, Interesting) 411

Actually, a better "analogy" is that they work hard on making sure that cash can't be used anonymously. Each transaction must be monitored

You know what the classic solution to all this is, right? Allow me a quote from a movie made a long time ago, called Enemy of the State;

Brill: In guerrilla warfare, you try to use your weaknesses as strengths.
Robert Clayton Dean: Such as?
Brill: Well, if they're big and you're small, then you're mobile and they're slow. You're hidden and they're exposed. You only fight battles you know you can win. That's the way the Vietcong did it. You capture their weapons and you use them against them the next time.

Guys... all their equipment is wired into the internet. A lot of it is the internet. And we're in a world where everything is increasingly interconnected and online all the time, everywhere. There's nothing they can do that we can't do too. They wanna watch us? We'll watch them. They wanna revoke passports overseas... I hope they don't plan on buying any plane tickets using credit cards. Frustrate them. Fuck with them.

Oh they'll call you a terrorist, they'll probably even throw in the word 'cyber' a lot, because they love cybering. But if you're good, and you're smart about it... they're gonna be hard-pressed to find you because you are one person in a target-rich environment. You can afford to pick and choose who, where, and when your engagements are. They can't. They're a fat blob of wires, ego, and data centers.

The NSA becoming this bloated piece of shit that tries to monitor everything is a major strategic weakness. They've moved off their primary focus. They've spread themselves too thin, trying to do too much at once, and this "NSA 2.0" they're rolling out has caused a previously impregnable organization to start leaking like a sieve. They're weak guys.

Let me be clear on this, because everyone's running around thinking the NSA is this unstoppable cyber super organization. They're fat, slow, and weak. They're exposed. It is just a matter of time before someone takes them to school on this. I'm not suggesting you do this. Or you. Or anyone. But the NSA has pissed off a lot of people, and we have enemies both foreign and domestic that want a little payback.

Well, meat's back on the menu guys. Anyone with an iota of tactical understanding realizes that when you try to be everything, everywhere, all the time... when you fight a protracted war... you exhaust your resources, your troops get tired, and then... then you lose.

The NSA is about to take a special kind of fall guys. Even if nobody gives them a helping push, they're going to collapse under their own weight. The intelligence cycle depends on timely analysis, accurate information, and good communication between analysts, management, and clients. Whenever you bloat up, communication increases exponentially, while the 'signal', the amount of useful information coming out, drops. We've all seen e-mail shitstorms in the office... there are intelligence community equivalents guys. The NSA is super-saturating itself and will render itself inert within a decade at the rate it is going... without any outside help whatsoever.

This isn't James Bond knowledge I'm working off of. There are people working at the NSA. And while I can't say what any one of them is doing, I know as a group that right now... it's a pressure-cooker environment. And if I had any way of validating that out there, I'd bet real money right now on it.

Comment Re:Boston Dynamics is a typical example of... (Score 1) 257

...really smart people creating things - "war machines" to be blunt - [...]... My 2 Cents. Feel free to disagree...

"Fun fact; before he built rockets for the Nazis, the idealistic Werner von Braun dreamed of space travel, he star gazed. Do you know what he said when the first V2 hit London? 'The rocket performed perfectly, it just landed on the wrong planet.' See we all begin wide-eyed, pure science. And then the ego steps in, the obsession. And you look up, you're a long way from shore."
-- Maya Hansen, Iron Man 3

Slashdot Top Deals

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)

Working...