Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What happens? (Score 2) 183

Consider this: a late night host shows up on TV and does a 5 minute monologue 5 nights a week. Most comedians spend about 3-6 months writing and testing material to do 15 minutes.

Using writers is the only way to create more than a small fraction of the TV time people demand.

Well, there are talented people out that that *can* do it. Hell, Robin Williams (rip)...could pretty much riff off anything any time anywhere....

There's talented folks out there that can do it daily and don't need a ton of writers behind them.

Comment Re:What happens? (Score 1) 183

...at the very least this will display to the world what anyone who watched SNL in the early 00's will tell you, that Jimmy Fallon is the unfunniest person on tv.

Well, he *was* quite adept at laughing at everyone else's jokes and bits on SNL when he was a cast member.

LOL..that guy could NOT keep a straight face during any skit....

Comment Re:bloat (Score 1) 52

I hear ya.

When I want a music player...I want a music player.

When I want video or streaming, I used the appropriate app.

I find with most things in life, the products that try to do all-in-one usually do none of them in a premium fashion.

I find it is usually best to buy dedicated units for most things, that are each engineered to do one thing and do it right.

Comment Re:Who paid for this study? (Score 1) 247

It sure would suck if food had chemicals in it.

Chemicals added there by humans, that don't naturally occur in them if you're going to be pedantic. Chemicals that usually fall into the artificial color and preservative category which are usually again, man made and contribute no nutritional value.

Comment Re:Who paid for this study? (Score 2, Insightful) 247

I always have difficulty in understanding what "real food" is as well. Most of the time it seems to exclude food that is inexpensive, requires little preparation and tastes good while at other times it seems to exclude foods that are simply too easy to eat. Much of the time it dosent translate into a rational discussion about a balanced intake of protein, carbs and fats and moderation of salt.

I should think 'real food' would be somewhat common sense, but here's some help...

First, real food needs to be purchased at a grocery store, farmers market, etc...not a fast food joint. If you shop around the periphery of the grocery store, particularly the produce area, you are in the real food zone. Real food is food that is not processed to where most all the nutrition has been thrown out or degraded, and a ton of chemicals added.

Real food, in general, requires YOU to do some preparation and cooking.

Those two general rules of thumb will steer you towards 'real food'.

Hope that helps....

Cooking real food doesn't take that long and it isn't that difficult.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 522

the pursuit of Happiness.

No...you missed that part "the pursuit of Happiness."....

The Feds are not responsible for your happiness, but they are there to help the states and keep law and order to provide an environment where you can pursue your happiness, and basically stay out of your way while you do it. This is different than the oppressive king they were declaring independence from.....

Also, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of the US Government. The US Constitution is, so, that's the one you need to be reading from....

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score -1) 522

You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?

See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause.

You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose. Defense is enumerated and the general welfare of the union was in large part for enumerated limited federal responsibilities for such things.

The union was to be kept strong, and then the states could then be responsible for the citizens in each state. If the states want to do healthcare, etc...sure feel free to do it.

But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.

he ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?

There already is a safety net for the poor....Medicaid.

But for everyone else, I think we should all have more free HSA type pre-tax savings accounts for routine health needs, not tied to any insurance. If families budget for food, why not budget for routine health needs? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies (hit by a bus, etc).

If this were the case, people would once again shop around for medicine and drs....like they did 40 years ago and prices would be lower.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1, Insightful) 522

The problem is routine medical not subsidized is several hundred dollars a visit. Times a wife and two kids and you are talking about thousands annually.

Hmm..really?

I mean annual check up for family of 4..say at $200 each would be about $800. Now with kids if they get sick a couple times a year, add another $800 maybe....so, $1600 a year for routine health is too much to expect a family to save for?

And..if we did what I was saying and go back to where insurance is only major medical, catastrophic insurance, people would be shopping around for Dr.s and not have middle men HMO's and the like....medicine was MUCH cheaper for routine care 30-40 years ago, even if you count for inflation. It is all the insurance covers everything and HMO's that drove the prices up.

Right now, one of the things that is trending, is groups of doctors that cover full range of the human anatomy are banding together and selling shares in health club type thing...you pay x annually and you're covered for most of your health needs.

If this type thing were allowed to grow, it might solve a LOT of the problems for routine care.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 522

If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.

Well, that provide for general welfare, has to be taken in the meaning of the day, not as "welfare" as we think of it today. Basically general welfare as used in the constitution was defined as the overall state of wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

This also was tied in with taxation, for the needs of the US to keep the union of the states strong, and to be able to fund the specific, limited enumerated responsibilities of the Fed. government.

It really didn't mean that the Feds were responsible for the health and happiness of the individual citizens, but for the health of the union, which then would lead to the states serving the needs of their citizens. In general that is...

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 522

In the U.S. it's a particularly large one because as a country we've decided we want a huge military, whereas if we scaled that back we could provide better health coverage, even as unhealthy as we are as a population.

I whole heartedly agree with 99.99% of your post, but this part caught my eye.

The US Govt (at least on the Federal level) is mandated by the US Constitution to provide for defense...that is one of its few enumerated responsibilities and powers.

I don't really think it is anywhere in the constitution for the government (at least on the federal level) to provide healthcare for the citizens, at least not without a constitutional amendment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Working...