• Dennis (unregistered)

    When I voted last month, as each voter entered the building a poll worker insisted the we turn our phones off (not just on vibrate). Were they afraid they would interfere with the voting machines or was there some other reason?

    Hmmm...<evil thoughts of sweep function generators...>

  • Asiago Chow (unregistered) in reply to merl
    merl:
    But at least the US gets it right and bails out deserving corporate types rather than masses of the unwashed poor they way othe r'socialist' nations do. Taxing from the rich minority to support the poor majority is sending people the wrong message.

    I always laugh at the "poor pay taxes and rich get bailouts" comments.

    The highest-paid 10% of US taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay 3% though they make 13% of the money...and before you get all upset about the 13% consider that that group includes retirees, students, and all sorts of others who aren't trying to get paid all that much. How about the super rich? The top 1% of income-earners pays almost 40% of the total tax burden in the USA.

    If any other identifiable group (race, religion, whatever) made up 10% of the population but was required to contribute 70%... if 70% of our military deaths were born by one minority group... there would be an outcry from every corner. Imagine the results if a law said that black people had to serve in the military because they make better soldiers. Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.

  • (cs) in reply to Dennis
    Dennis:
    When I voted last month, as each voter entered the building a poll worker insisted the we turn our phones off (not just on vibrate). Were they afraid they would interfere with the voting machines or was there some other reason?
    Yes, they were afraid of you selling your vote by taking a picture of the voting machine for proof of your vote. It's easier to just tell people to turn off their phones that to determine which phones have cameras.
  • Richard W. (unregistered) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    I always laugh at the "poor pay taxes and rich get bailouts" comments.

    ...

    Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.

    Again, it is simply an application of very basic economic theory. The purpose of tax is to raise revenue. It is pointless to tax people who will not contribute in any significant way to raising that revenue. This is the only reason why the rich are taxed more than the poor.

    I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

  • Asiago Chow (unregistered) in reply to Richard W.
    Richard W.:
    Asiago Chow:
    I Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.

    Again, it is simply an application of very basic economic theory. The purpose of tax is to raise revenue. It is pointless to tax people who will not contribute in any significant way to raising that revenue. This is the only reason why the rich are taxed more than the poor.

    I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

    The question is, do you have a right to target select individuals just because it works? Do we have a right to force native americans to be soldiers because they are good at it? To force muslims to undergo extra tax audits because they may be funding terrorists through their mosques? To force unmarried women to have implanted contraceptives because it reduces unplanned pregnancies and lowers the burden on the state?

    Or are there human rights?

  • (cs) in reply to Zach Bora
    Zach Bora:
    In the hospital where I go see my grandmother, cellphones aren`t getting signals. It's weird... doesn`t that stuff go through windows? Am standing next to a window and it doesn`t work.
    There are only two things I can think of: jamming device (in the US, I think that's illegal due to potential emergency inbound calls), and metal coatings on the glass & sheeting in the walls to prevent signal transmission.

    That was my theory with trying to get WiFi from a free service outside Denver's new hotel. I could get decent signal outside the building's entrance, but as soon as I was immediately to the other side of the glass, zero signal. In that case, I'm guessing it was a jammer or both.

  • (cs) in reply to eighty-one
    eighty-one:
    CAPTCHA: commoveo (I don't kow why I'm doing this - it just seems like all the cool kids do so I will to)
    It's called cargo cult commenting. Just register, then you can make up your own captcha's
  • (cs) in reply to blunder
    blunder:
    OTOH (and not that I don't sympathize with the author here), using FMLA to essentially go on a family vacation seems dishonest. Seems like he did the right thing by notifying the new boss in advance that he'd need the time off, even the boss was too much of an ass to appreciate that.
    Not so! If you qualify for FMLA, you have to apply for it in advance and specify how long it will be. IIRC, it can be extended. What it doesn't permit is a stop then restart. However, as a 20 year old _and_a_new_hire_, he probably wanted to maximize his income so he worked this out. (He didn't qualify for FMLA as a new hire and FMLA is limited to companies with a minimum headcount, again, IIRC)
  • (cs)
    It was while working on this task that Ray learned the corridor usage policy. The reception area was near the area with the rest of the staff, and down the hall were the executives' offices. Employees could only use the hallway if they were meeting with executives. If you were in a room that had two or three doors and you didn't choose the door closest to the office you were going to, you'd be forced to reenter the room and leave from the closest door. In fact, if there was a closer door in the building, sometimes the employees would literally have to leave the building and walk outside for a bit to get to the closest door.

    I don't understand the policy. Was the whole point of the "forced to reneter" the room to avoid the corridor? Or was it the case that you were supposed to take the shortest route, and if you left through the long route you were costing the company money by walking too far? I just don't get the whole "closer" door thing. Wouldn't the person's office door be the closest door?

  • (cs) in reply to Sir Twist
    Sir Twist:
    Dennis:
    When I voted last month, as each voter entered the building a poll worker insisted the we turn our phones off (not just on vibrate). Were they afraid they would interfere with the voting machines or was there some other reason?
    Yes, they were afraid of you selling your vote by taking a picture of the voting machine for proof of your vote. It's easier to just tell people to turn off their phones that to determine which phones have cameras.
    As if they could even see my iPhone in my pants pocket. Set it to vibrate to prevent it giving me away from an inbound call and I'm golden.
  • Duke of New York (unregistered) in reply to Asiago Chow

    [quote user="Asiago Chow]The question is,[/quote] Regardless what the question is, the answer is that you should stop dragging politics into this software development blog.

  • Why Not (unregistered) in reply to Bigsby McDougalheimer
    Bigsby McDougalheimer:
    Frost:
    Kazan:
    Basseq:
    Brett, the bigger WTF is that cell phones aren't allowed in hospitals, especially patient rooms.

    O'RLY?

    that's news to me an my father is a research patient and has had 37 operations

    YA RLY. That's not to say they physically enforce the policy, but pretty much every hospital has "no cell phone" signs.

    Sorry but you are wrong about this. While it is a well known fact you can't even turn a cell phone on in an areas where pacemackers and other equipment are in use, cell phones are perfectly fine in almost all other areas of most hospitals and if you look closely, you will see numerous people talking on the damn things all day long. Wish they had a no cell phone policy in all areas, but that is just not the case.

    Oh...you're one of those 'if everyone else does it, it must be allowed' types.... I'm reasonably certain that where I live, you are not allowed to have phones on in hospitals. That doesn't stop people using them (or even doctors and nurses offering people to use them).... Just because people ignore rules, doesn't mean they're not there (and I'm not trying to get into a should/shouldn't debate about it). Every hospital I can remember going to has signs as you walk through the entrance saying "Turn off mobile phones"....

    On another note, different countries may have different rules, but over here an employer must allow (not necessarily paid) paternity under similar conditions as maternity leave. However, some of thos conditions are:

    1. Must have had continuous service with company for 12months
    2. can't be taken cocurrently with your wife's maternity leave (unless I'm reading the law wrong)
    3. Max weeks is less than for maternity leave (I think)
    4. there is a cap on how long after birth this leave can be taken....
  • Moto (unregistered) in reply to Jamie
    Jamie:
    hehe

    no idea about the issues with mobile phones in hosptials, but the one that really bugs is me is having to turn your phone off on a plane

    surely Al Queada etc would have managed to take down a plane by now if it was at all possible

    Ever thought the problem might be closer related to getting a signal on your phone? People would complain if they had their phones on and were continually losing signal, or not receiving messages properly.

    Quite intelligently, they banned mobile phones on planes to avoid people complaining that they were getting ripped off by telcos chargin them for shithouse service. What do you think 'in-flight' mode is? It's just a mode where the phone can be on but the signal blocks.

    It's concievable (thoug I doubt it) that the frequencies of phones somehow affect their navigation equipment - but I suspect that's if large numbers of people use phones, not just one or two - so a terrorist group would have to put more terrorists on a plane than they could spare to take it down....Kinda no point them trying....(They can't just put 100 phones in their bag, 'cos they will get picked up by airport scanning)

    This is actually the same reason petrol stations won't allow mobile phones - it has nothing to do with the petrol igniting, it's a fear that the electronics inside the pump may not calculate price correctly....

  • Blkfg (unregistered) in reply to Downfall
    Downfall:
    TRWTF is that people choose to have babies.

    Yeah - wouldn't it be great if your parents chose not to have you....

  • Doctor Doctor (unregistered) in reply to Michael
    Michael:
    stfu:
    what percentage of your income does the government take in taxes in order to pay for this "completely free" service?
    operagost:
    I think it's so awesome how your Parliament pays for the subjects' health care out of their own pockets. I wonder where they get all the money! Oh wait... maybe it's really your money!

    In our system, the minority of rich people pay the majority of the taxes. The theory is that the privileged have a responsibility towards those who are not as fortunate as themselves. I know this belief is not predominant in the US (where supposedly you can achieve anything if you really want it enough) but that's the belief that our welfare state is founded on.

    As such, a lot of people really do get their welfare for free. Yes, they do contribute towards the system, but they get more out of the system that they put in (the more fortunate people pay the extra).

    So if you're unfortunate enough to suffer from cancer, you don't have to worry about your health insurance running out and you not being able to afford drugs. Those that are more fortunate than yourself will foot the bill.

    The UK is very different to the US, we do have very different beliefs that found our respective societies. The UK has for its most part been a fairly socialist society whereas raw capitalism has always fuelled the US. In the US people are expected to provide for themselves, in the UK we're expected to look out for each other.

    I think to say that you pay for your own healthcare is naive as in truth some people pay in more than they get, others get more than they pay.

    It's like one giant socialist insurance system, except it's fairer because it's not for profit and you don't get shareholders syphoning off money.

    It's not perfect of course, there are many people who defraud the system at both ends. However I'd much prefer it to the US system which, frankly, I believe to be barbaric.

    When I'm on my deathbed, I know I'm not going to spend my last living days worrying about the burden I've placed on my family. They're not ever going to feel compelled to sell all their belongings in order to fund the drugs to support my life for longer.

    Allow me to say, first of all, I am neither from the US nor the UK (I'm not a Septic or a POM, in the local lingo)...

    The UK theory is all beaut and fine, but in reality it is not always the best off who pay the most tax - in fact it's probably the middle classes who do...

    People who a better off tend to afford accountants who are more adept at hiding income, and knowing how to minimise returns. There have been claims (unsubstantiated, I believe) of some of the richest men (there probably have been about rich women too - I've just not heard them) who have paid as little as $10 (income) tax in a calendar year...

    While I would tend to favour the UK model to the US one, no system is perfect, and rarely does any system successfully achieve exactly what it intends to (hell, we could say much the same about most computer systems...)

  • Mayor (unregistered) in reply to Dennis
    Dennis:
    When I voted last month, as each voter entered the building a poll worker insisted the we turn our phones off (not just on vibrate). Were they afraid they would interfere with the voting machines or was there some other reason?

    Hmmm...<evil thoughts of sweep function generators...>

    Of Course... Firstly people seem to have an inherent fear of mobile phones messing things up (just read through the posts here to see that). Secondly, elections are becoming like exams. The people who orun them fear technology, and think you're going to 'cheat' somehow - I'm sure they are not even sure themselves what they are actually trying to stop....

  • Trump (unregistered) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    merl:
    But at least the US gets it right and bails out deserving corporate types rather than masses of the unwashed poor they way othe r'socialist' nations do. Taxing from the rich minority to support the poor majority is sending people the wrong message.

    I always laugh at the "poor pay taxes and rich get bailouts" comments.

    The highest-paid 10% of US taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay 3% though they make 13% of the money...and before you get all upset about the 13% consider that that group includes retirees, students, and all sorts of others who aren't trying to get paid all that much. How about the super rich? The top 1% of income-earners pays almost 40% of the total tax burden in the USA.

    If any other identifiable group (race, religion, whatever) made up 10% of the population but was required to contribute 70%... if 70% of our military deaths were born by one minority group... there would be an outcry from every corner. Imagine the results if a law said that black people had to serve in the military because they make better soldiers. Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.

    That's meaningless statistics.... the bottom 50% pay 3% yet make 13% of all the money - presumably there is some sofrt of a threshold to ensure that there is a poit where you don't pay tax. This statistic is more an indication of how many people live in poverty or near poverty than anything else.

    These statistics are also artificial, because (I suspect) they confuse business earnings with indicvidual earnings - do these statistics reflect just INDIVIDUAL INCOME tax?? If these statistics reflect a businessman's tax vs take-home pay, but includes the tax his business is paying (and doesn't take into account the money his business is in profit aside from his earnings) then they are incredibly misleading.

    To me, all these stats are saying is that the US must have some severely disadvantaged people... Don't get me wrong, I think much of society has an attitude of "I'm entitled to something because I'm alive", and that government support often breeds a culture of reliance - that is, that government assistance (of any form) is all too often abused. However, I think statistics such as the ones posted are absolutely meaningless (more so than many other statistics)....

    </waffle>
  • Biggles (unregistered) in reply to Trump
    Trump:
    Asiago Chow:
    merl:
    But at least the US gets it right and bails out deserving corporate types rather than masses of the unwashed poor they way othe r'socialist' nations do. Taxing from the rich minority to support the poor majority is sending people the wrong message.

    I always laugh at the "poor pay taxes and rich get bailouts" comments.

    The highest-paid 10% of US taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay 3% though they make 13% of the money...and before you get all upset about the 13% consider that that group includes retirees, students, and all sorts of others who aren't trying to get paid all that much. How about the super rich? The top 1% of income-earners pays almost 40% of the total tax burden in the USA.

    If any other identifiable group (race, religion, whatever) made up 10% of the population but was required to contribute 70%... if 70% of our military deaths were born by one minority group... there would be an outcry from every corner. Imagine the results if a law said that black people had to serve in the military because they make better soldiers. Yet forcing 1% of the population to pay 40% of the taxes because they are better at making money is okie-dokie. I wonder how history will judge that. Sort of like slavery I think.

    That's meaningless statistics.... the bottom 50% pay 3% yet make 13% of all the money - presumably there is some sofrt of a threshold to ensure that there is a poit where you don't pay tax. This statistic is more an indication of how many people live in poverty or near poverty than anything else.

    These statistics are also artificial, because (I suspect) they confuse business earnings with indicvidual earnings - do these statistics reflect just INDIVIDUAL INCOME tax?? If these statistics reflect a businessman's tax vs take-home pay, but includes the tax his business is paying (and doesn't take into account the money his business is in profit aside from his earnings) then they are incredibly misleading.

    To me, all these stats are saying is that the US must have some severely disadvantaged people... Don't get me wrong, I think much of society has an attitude of "I'm entitled to something because I'm alive", and that government support often breeds a culture of reliance - that is, that government assistance (of any form) is all too often abused. However, I think statistics such as the ones posted are absolutely meaningless (more so than many other statistics)....

    </waffle>

    Either way - Surely if this was such a problem for the people who earn so much, they would deliberately STOP earning so much. After all, if being a low-income earner is so great, maybe it's something we should all strive for...

  • JimBob (unregistered) in reply to Jamie
    Jamie:
    hehe

    no idea about the issues with mobile phones in hosptials, but the one that really bugs is me is having to turn your phone off on a plane

    surely Al Queada etc would have managed to take down a plane by now if it was at all possible

    No, that's just because it's the easiest way to make sure nobody has to listen to your yapping at the top of your lungs as if there was nobody on the plane but you.
  • Richard W. (unregistered) in reply to Asiago Chow
    Asiago Chow:
    Richard W.:
    Again, it is simply an application of very basic economic theory. The purpose of tax is to raise revenue. It is pointless to tax people who will not contribute in any significant way to raising that revenue. This is the only reason why the rich are taxed more than the poor.

    I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

    The question is, do you have a right to target select individuals just because it works? Do we have a right to force native americans to be soldiers because they are good at it? To force muslims to undergo extra tax audits because they may be funding terrorists through their mosques? To force unmarried women to have implanted contraceptives because it reduces unplanned pregnancies and lowers the burden on the state?

    Or are there human rights?

    There is a glaring difference between rich people being taxed and the examples you have given. Every example you've given involves someone being physically coerced into to do something which in most causes is against their best interests as human beings. These are completely irrelevant to what we are discussing.

    Rich people are not "forced" to be rich people, or "forced" to earn high incomes. They can quit their jobs if they are unsatisfied with their lot in life. They can go and work in McDonalds and pay as little tax as they like (actually, most of them just hire a team of accountants to minimise their tax as much as possible).

    Furthermore, rich people live extremely comfortable lives. Yes, CEOs and the like typically work extremely hard, and I'm not suggesting that at least some of them aren't worth what they are paid. However, comparing these people to slaves is ridiculous and insulting. You probably should read up a bit about what it was like to be a real slave. Real slaves never had million dollar homes, frequent plane trips all over the world, a lexus, the best food and drink available, and hot trophy wives.

    I've given you the benefit of the doubt but I'm still undecided as to whether or not you are just trolling. Either way, your judgement is awry.

  • Nemo (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    So it may just be me, but does anyone else find that stock "cute baby" photo scary as hell?
    It's not just you. This is what I see: [image] THIS SIDE TOWARD ENEMY

    Seriously, that kid looks like he's gonna hurl something fierce.

  • Mark (unregistered) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    operagost:
    I think it's so awesome how your Parliament pays for the subjects' health care out of their own pockets. I wonder where they get all the money! Oh wait... maybe it's really your money!
    What evil bastards!

    Why can't they learn to be good capitalists? Then they'ld only need to take taxpayer's money and hand it over to CEOs as a reward for successfully running their business to the point where a noble and beautiful capitalist bailout is, apparantly, necessary.

    I <3 capitalisim! Down with evil socialists!

    Sorry to rain on your humor parade, but what you just described is NOT capitalism. Your attempt at Criticism is ignorant.

  • Nemo (unregistered) in reply to Jamie
    Jamie:
    no idea about the issues with mobile phones in hosptials, but the one that really bugs is me is having to turn your phone off on a plane

    surely Al Queada etc would have managed to take down a plane by now if it was at all possible

    It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with the pilot finding the runway in hard-IFR weather. A secondary issue is how cell phone systems don't work well with phones traveling over 150 MPH (too much Doppler shift) and constantly varying coverage and roaming. All these issues were present pre-9/11.

    Pilots and their airlines are rather paranoid about anything that might contribute to a crash, from electronics jamming the navigation radios to not telling people about some landmark on one side of the plane for fear that everyone will get up and move to that side, pitching the plane over.

    If the FCC created standards for radio emissions that were stringent enough to have nil risk of jamming air navigation aids, and the government banned sales of electronics that don't meet these standards and pulled them off the shelves, then I could see airlines loosening up. But so long as my TDMA cell phone can screw with darn near any amplified computer speakers, there's no hope.

  • Kensey (unregistered)

    I once had a project leader where I work call me and ask if I could get on a conference call during a change implementation for "moral support".

    Since it was Christmas Eve, my wife and I were traveling as soon as I got home, it was dark, it was snowing, I was still driving home when he called and I had no hands-free rig in the car, I basically told him "hell no, and by the way forget about calling me for the next three days unless someone is in imminent danger of dying or at least major dismemberment".

  • me (unregistered) in reply to Bob
    Why can't they learn to be good capitalists? Then they'ld only need to take taxpayer's money and hand it over to CEOs as a reward for successfully running their business to the point where a noble and beautiful capitalist bailout is, apparantly, necessary.
    Those bailout plans have nothing in common with capitalism. A true capitalist economy would let the businesses die, as they should.
  • Mads Bondo Dydensborg (unregistered)

    Every time I hear about the issue of vacation in the US, I get scared.

    Two weeks vacation a year? In Denmark everybody (everybody that works, that is) has at least 5 weeks paid vacation a year. Some have more, I have 6, one of my neighbours has 7. Oh, and extra days off pr. child: I have two children below the age of 10, which grants me four extra days off per year.

    And, maternaty leave? Differs from job to job, but the state will pay a fixed amount for 6 months to every father and mother (for a total of 12 months, if timeshared). In my job I get 6 months off with full pay for every kid. In e.g. Sweden its even more.

    The backside: we do pay more in taxes, but the majority really do not mind.

  • Mark Robinson (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    All babies are secretly like that. I'm fairly sure that my 6 month old daughter is a secret brain eating zombie - and she actually looks like the stock baby photo!

  • csrster (unregistered)

    I know all about those "corridor" policies. At my current workplace (a library) we're not allowed to carry cases of beer (full or empty!) through the public areas but have to take them up/down a windy back staircase. At least they let us leave the building to buy the stuff on company time. And drink it. But only once a week. Most weeks.

    On balance, I think I like my job.

  • (cs)

    New-ish avionics probably don't care zilch about cell phone emissions. Older gear may well do, since the frequencies in common use today were in the realm of experimentation/military use just 15-20 years ago. There are quite a few jets out there flying with avionics and nav gear designed 15-20 years ago. Design cycles for flight-approved gear are quite long.

    AFAIK, it doesn't take all that much for 1.8GHz signals to leak in to a device that's pretty much immune to 500MHz stuff. RF shielding can loose efficiency much faster than 3dB/octave!

    Probably better to hear it from the horse's mouth:

    • Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.

    • Instability of indicators.
    • Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
    • VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
    • VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
    • Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
    • Background noise on audio outputs. [...]Most anomalies were observed at 1719MHz.
    =taken from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF

    Patrick Smith of Ask The Pilot fame had an article about having problems on a commuter plane due to cellphone interference. I didn't bother to Google it up (too many results and the hit wasn't on the first two pages), but I recall the article being there ;)

    Cheers, Kuba

  • Lutikka (unregistered)

    I had to come work to reboot a server 2 hours after my daughter was born dead in 2005.

    Do I win something?

  • pwe (unregistered) in reply to stfu
    stfu:
    Anonymous:

    But hey, at least the treatment and drugs are completely free, eh? It's not so bad having a public health service (I know you yanks don't agree - after all, "socialised medicine" is the ultimate evil, right? Well, enjoy your health insurance...).

    what percentage of your income does the government take in taxes in order to pay for this "completely free" service?

    About as much as you give for bombs.

  • Andre (unregistered) in reply to Mark
    Mark:
    IT Girl:
    I agree with you that it's "just email", but it never ceases to amaze me how bent out of shape people get when they can't have immediate access to it ("all my stuff's in there"). Where I work the solution to many a desktop issue is to reimage the machine... lord save us all if I don't save those pst files first and they get wiped out.

    That's your mistake right there. At a friend's company, they declare as policy that there are to be no local files. Everything is on the network. So if you are using .PST files stored locally on the machine, that's your fault for not backing them up. Works to IT's advantage.

    As a matter of fact, storing PSTs on network drives are not supported nor recommended by MS themselves.

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/297019/en-us

  • Fuzzypig (unregistered)

    Screw that! I admit I have sometimes sacrificed weekends and evenings to get work done, but the minute some life changing thing in my personal life gets stamped on, a new job is the order of the day! Everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to a personal life. I make it a point to keep work and home apart, as much as is possible in this day an age. Corp meetings be damned! If my kid's play is on, that is the most important thing that day, that week or month even.

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to Matt
    Matt:
    That corridor policy is retarded. I would freely ignore it. We have a door that says "Do Not Exit the building through this door. Which is dumb because the parking lot is right outside the door. Instead they want us to walk out the front door and around. Well, if its raining, or snowing, or hot or cold, that's dumb. So I ignore it.
    A corridor policy is retarded, but a fire exit door policy isn't. The emergency door may have sensors or cameras installed that trigger an alarm when that particular door opens.

    Of course the sign on the door should say "Do Not Exit the building through this door, except in case of emergency."

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to stfu
    stfu:
    Anonymous:

    But hey, at least the treatment and drugs are completely free, eh? It's not so bad having a public health service (I know you yanks don't agree - after all, "socialised medicine" is the ultimate evil, right? Well, enjoy your health insurance...).

    what percentage of your income does the government take in taxes in order to pay for this "completely free" service?

    In .be: about 50%. It's even more in the Scandinavian countries

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to Mark
    Mark:
    That's your mistake right there. At a friend's company, they declare as policy that there are to be no local files. Everything is on the network. So if you are using .PST files stored locally on the machine, that's your fault for not backing them up. Works to IT's advantage.
    .PST files on the network. Now that's a WTF. Even according to Microsoft. Just go to Google, fill in "pst network" and click on "I feel lucky". You will see KB297019: "Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link"
  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to Richard W.
    Richard W.:
    The bailout is simply better than the alternative of the entire United States of America collapsing into anarchy.
    O really?
  • cys (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    Damn, adding that caption makes me realise how much I miss Mandatory Fun Day!

  • IHasYerCheezburger (unregistered) in reply to IHasYerCheezburger
    IHasYerCheezburger:
    In .be: about 50%. It's even more in the Scandinavian countries
    EDIT: 50% is all taxes, but of course not all of it goes to healthcare.
  • Holy Shit (unregistered) in reply to Lutikka
    Lutikka:
    I had to come work to reboot a server 2 hours after my daughter was born dead in 2005.

    Do I win something?

    A new job, I would hope! I would have gone in to "reboot" the server and typed "format c:", then told my boss to go f himself.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Lutikka
    Lutikka:
    I had to come work to reboot a server 2 hours after my daughter was born dead in 2005.

    Do I win something?

    Damn, you win the whole thread my friend.

  • (cs) in reply to IHasYerCheezburger
    IHasYerCheezburger:
    .PST files on the network. Now that's a WTF. Even according to Microsoft. Just go to Google, fill in "pst network" and click on "I feel lucky". You will see KB297019: "Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link"

    Skimming that article presents these possibilities to me:

    1. They want you to buy Exchange (which of course ought to be on its own box / VM) which also means domains and Active Directory shit which just doesn't get considered due to TCO for small businesses.

    2. They want you to buy WTS instead to mitigate "bandwidth issues". That would have to be some big network before the bandwidth was low enough to be noticed. Even then, there's bound to be other things that are slowing the network down, like a mailserver with only a 10/100 card running in half-duplex.

    3. If there is an ever increasing queue in NPP due to disk problems, then the problem is the disk, not accessing a file over the network. The blurb also implies that there is no timely removal of requests from NPP. Now there's a WTF. Oh, wait, no it isn't, it's a feature...

  • (cs) in reply to eighty-one
    eighty-one:

    Large economies of scale = lower costs

    I cry every time I read this because people don't understand what it means.

    Economies of scale only applies to scale of the supply, not scale of the demand. The problem with socialized health care is it takes the money from everyone and applies it to the demand of just a few. The result is that per procedure the cost is higher than it would be without socialization, and the total cost of all care is also higher, even though the cost per person is lower (until you hit the pay-out cap).

    It's like how car payments are lower for a 72 month loan than a 36 month loan but the former costs significantly more in total.

    Addendum (2008-12-11 09:12): Economies of scale don't currently work in health care anyway because the costs scale with amount of service: probability of lawsuits does not decrease with increased number of patients - it either stays constant or increases. It's not like a factory where if you spend $1 million on a machine and make 10 parts each one then must cover $100k, but if that machine makes 10,000 parts each one only has to cover $100. In medicine, if you have 10 people and get 1 lawsuit for $100M, that's $10M/ person. If you have 100 people and get 10 lawsuits for $100M each, that's still $10M/person. There is no economy of scale there. (Yes, numbers are made up for illustrative purposes.)

  • Blast buster (unregistered) in reply to Why Not
    Oh...you're one of those 'if everyone else does it, it must be allowed' types.... I'm reasonably certain that where I live, you are not allowed to have phones on in hospitals. That doesn't stop people using them (or even doctors and nurses offering people to use them).... Just because people ignore rules, doesn't mean they're not there (and I'm not trying to get into a should/shouldn't debate about it). Every hospital I can remember going to has signs as you walk through the entrance saying "Turn off mobile phones"....

    In my hospital they actually installed wireless repeaters so that people could get decent signals. Of course, the signal is for the "hometown" wireless company. Med students on the wards are required to have a smartphone (that work with said hometown provider - HTC Touch or some other unit bought through the school) which they use as a PDA, pager, etc... I've never seen a sign saying to turn off phones - even going into places like interventional radiology, neuro-ICU, radiology, surgical theaters, etc...

  • Paul Berry (unregistered)

    TRWTF is I still can't visualise the inane corridor/room/door policy. A diagram please? Seriously.

  • (cs)

    TRWTF are babies in general. Little ugly screamers. I'd rather deal with a broken mail server than a baby. And I don't even know how to fix mail servers.

    Mandatory caption: [image]

  • JohnB (unregistered) in reply to no, you stfu
    no:
    Oddly, the UK government spends a very similar amount per-capita as the US government on healthcare: the per-capita expenditure on healthcare is about double in the US than in the UK, and the US government itself pays for about half of that.

    But, in the US, you have to pay again before you can use the services you've already paid for.

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/09/12/WORLD_HEALTH_1209_graphic.pdf

    That's really unkind: you're relying on facts.

  • JohnB (unregistered) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    Bob:
    What evil bastards!

    Why can't they learn to be good capitalists? Then they'ld only need to take taxpayer's money and hand it over to CEOs as a reward for successfully running their business to the point where a noble and beautiful capitalist bailout is, apparantly, necessary.

    I <3 capitalisim! Down with evil socialists!

    Way to stick it to those capitalists!

    Oh wait... Having the government pull the money you earned out of your pocket to give to someone they deem more deserving, ie CEOs or the "less fortunate", is socialism, not capitalism. Oops, looks like we're not capitalists after all!

    Oh, and maybe UK's lower spending accounts for infestations and maternity trouble...

    Socialized medicine: Health care with postal efficiency and IRS compassion

    Well ... duh ... both quotes are from the Telegraph. (Its editorial stance is to the right of the WSJ.)

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    So it may just be me, but does anyone else find that stock "cute baby" photo scary as hell? He's all cute and clean and happy, not even remotely like a real baby. And the look on his face, damn, that smacks of purest evil - almost as though he can sense the exact moment that I'm going to die... and he's revelling in it!!!

    I've met someone that made me think just that. I was a camp counsellor and he was the most pleasant, polite, genial, 13-year-old boy I had ever met. Always had a smile, always said his please and thank-you's, always obeyed the leaders, always diplomatic, super intelligent conversation. Never got into any kind of trouble. He was the perfect kid. To the point where it was actually beginning to drive me crazy. And I really think he knew that all along.

  • (cs) in reply to chrismcb
    chrismcb:
    It was while working on this task that Ray learned the corridor usage policy. The reception area was near the area with the rest of the staff, and down the hall were the executives' offices. Employees could only use the hallway if they were meeting with executives. If you were in a room that had two or three doors and you didn't choose the door closest to the office you were going to, you'd be forced to reenter the room and leave from the closest door. In fact, if there was a closer door in the building, sometimes the employees would literally have to leave the building and walk outside for a bit to get to the closest door.

    I don't understand the policy. Was the whole point of the "forced to reneter" the room to avoid the corridor? Or was it the case that you were supposed to take the shortest route, and if you left through the long route you were costing the company money by walking too far? I just don't get the whole "closer" door thing. Wouldn't the person's office door be the closest door?

    It was so that we wouldn't be walking past executive's doors who weren't being visited. Think of it like this:

        E1  E2  E3  E4
D1==================D3
          D2

    D1,D2, and D3 are the doors. E1-E4 are the executive's offices. My cube was closest to D2, but in order to visit E4 I had to use D3 which involved walking all the way around the building. If I used D2, then E2 or E3 would get mad and make me go back out D2 to use D3 even though I was just 5 fee from E4...

Leave a comment on “Bringing Up Baby”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article