- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Government works on the principle that "there is never enough money to do the job right, but unlimited funds available to attempt to fix it."
Admin
You getting a bonus this year? Lucky bastard. Seems being a startup and the current troubling financial times disqualifies us from incentives and bonuses. Sucks to be me. Anyone hiring?
Admin
Admin
Food - VERY possible. Sure, so it still has to meet safety laws - but try comparing some cheap and expensive versions of the same food. Usually you WILL notice the difference (sometimes the cheap stuff is good though). And it'll probably show in the nutrition info too.
Bullets also probably possible. They should still be safe, but one might expect cheap bullets to have looser tolerances, and thus be less accurate.
I avoid shopping at Asda (Walmart's UK operation) if possible. Not that the other supermarkets are really much better. We have a similar thing in the UK, though rather more sophisticated, it's a proper glossy magazine, though not my sort of content: "The Big Issue" http://www.bigissue.com/Do the job. If it's a personal site it likely has no or shit css. Just spend a couple hours writing some. Tell him that's a hundred dollars work.
Admin
Admin
Very well put gabba.
Admin
Admin
True, the bullets may be less accurate, but a: they're discounted 5-10% off the cheap stuff I can get elsewhere and b: they're more accurate than I am at the moment.
Admin
It is incorrect to believe that people go to ERs more often because they dislike other inexpensive healthcare options (clinics, independent doctor's offices, county and other social services-provided events, etc). They go to them because THEY HAVE MORE EMERGENCIES!
You can't simply give everyone "normal" heath care and expect the number of emergencies they face to go down. It's like giving everyone bank accounts and expecting their savings to increase. Yeah, you have a savings account and you have more savings, you have normal healthcare and you have fewer emergencies, but those -- savings account or normal healthcare -- are not causal of savings or fewer emergencies. You have the normal healthcare because you think ahead. You have fewer emergencies because you think ahead. You have the savings account because you think ahead. You have more savings because you think ahead. They are having emergencies for many lifestyle, training, and core reasons. Those reasons don't go away just because they can get their shots for free. Heck, they may not even get their shots just because they can get them for free. Talk to them. Interact with them. You will quickly realize that they are having more emergencies for reasons that your policies simply will not change.
Your idea that you can give them some "normal" healthcare and they'll suddenly stop having emergencies is absurd. It isn't even complete since their emergencies go beyond the medical -- they face higher incidence of crime, fire, and a host of other issues requiring non-medical emergency services and you'd be hard pressed to explain how vaccinations would keep someone from being robbed or have their kids require protection by the state because they are being neglected or abused.
You can call it soccialism if you want but I'd just call it misguided. The problems they face are not caused by a lack of vaccinations. They aren't anything you can wave feel-good wands at. They are real problems and the frequent need for emergency services -- and their employement at walmart -- is symptomatic of those problems. Unless you have a proposal for solving those problems that doesn't involve killing them all or genetic engineering you should probably stick to making sure your own house is in order.
Admin
I used to work in a web design company in a medium city, we were a server guy, a database guy, a PHP guy, 2 HTML/JS monkeys and 2 designers. We were partners with a hosting/collo company, and hired freelance Flash people when needed.
Our business strategy consisted of:
This worked most of the time, and we got a good reputation pretty fast. We love the cheap website people, they educate our clients in the value of hiring professionals.
Admin
My God, have I gotten so tired of encountering that kind of crap. The number of people with no knowledge of computers who don't want to listen to, or aren't happy with the cost of, something I recommend (we're talking 30+ years of experience) is just amazing. It really doesn't even seem to matter if you're fairly good communicating your knowledge and reasoning to them. That makes it worse, apparently making them think that they know more than they actually do as to what can be effectively ignored or written off without major problems.
Admin
I know everyone's got their own failed development stories, but:
About 10 years ago my employer decided to develop a new major system completely in-house. Once we had requirements and a testing plan, I said it could be done in 14 months for $2.5 million, all inclusive. This was rejected as unworkable, and I was told I had 9 months and $1.5 million. I argued it as well as I could, and when that failed, I asked to be transferred off the project, which they quickly did. I was replaced by a Young Gun who was anxious to prove he knew a lot of things I didn't and that he should have my job, because what did I know, anyway? He promised he could do it in less than 9 months, for less than $1.5 million. His major qualification was knowing a little VB.
30 months and $27 million later, Young Gun was unable to provide an estimate of when it would be done, but he did know that they were not yet to the halfway point. The plug was pulled.
I'm sorry to say there's not happy ending or satisfying moral here. I went to another company, and Young Gun got my job because he had managed such a big project and been responsible for so much money being spent.
Admin
It is true that they are having emergencies from many lifestyle and related reasons. It is also true that getting "normal" healthcare will reduce the number of emergencies by enough to produce a net savings. (Not, however, the astounding savings that some would claim, just from comparing the ER visit counts.)
Would they still have more emergencies? Yes. Would they be for stupid reasons? Yes. But at least they wouldn't be because we were being stupid.
Also, some of them aren't making stupid lifestyle choices - at least, not worse than choosing Cheerios over Raisin Bran or Fiber One for a high fiber diet. I admit, the vast majority that I've met are, but there's a few who are not. Even if we did make a national choice to withhold national health coverage from drug abusers, for example, we shouldn't be withholding health care from people just because they're in a class of people most of whom are addicted to some form of alcohol, tobacco, or one or more illegal drugs.