Y2HH

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 8, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) 1. I never said anything about their treatment. They did what they could do. 2. Actually they kinda did make a rash decision. They admit in the article that they didn't follow any procedure and never informed the patient. I never minimized the help they provided. Every hospital should have done the same to treat the patient. What I said is that a hospital does not have the power to deport an illegal immigrant. That is the power of the federal government and they must make the determination based on the facts of the individual. In some situations illegals will not be deported for humanitarian reasons. All I said is that a hospital cannot make that call since they did not and cannot perform a proper investigation. And don't make it sound like they just "sent him home" like he lives down the street. I don't care WHERE he lives, he's here illegally. And the federal government shouldn't have taken 4 f***ing months to do something, either.

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 8, 2011 -> 08:07 AM) First, yes the article says he was a roofer. Second, the bills should be paid by emergency medicaid and the company that employed him went bankrupt, so there won't be a lawsuit. You paid for it. The larger point here is that the hospital made a unilateral deportation decision and litterally flew him out of the country. That should not be legal. In circumstances like this, an immigration judge may find that he needs to stay in the US in order to receive proper treatment for his injuries. I don't know how rare such a determination is (probably pretty rare), but it is the proper method of handling the situation. But he DID receive proper treatment for his injuries, without a judge having to mandate it, which is the point here. It's not like this hospital, which you're trying to make sound like a villain, "unilaterally" deported him without treatment. I think you are way off base on this, and you make it sound like they 1) didn't treat him at all or outright treated him bad, and 2) made a rash decision to deport him instead of helping when neither happened. He WAS treated, for free, and THEN sent home. For almost four months, doctors and nurses at Advocate Christ Medical Center cared for the young Mexican laborer who had fallen from a roof and lost the ability to speak, breathe or move most parts of his body. They not only treated him, they did so for FOUR months.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) Yeah pretty much. They saved his life. People get caught up in issues sometimes and forget that they don't actually have a right to be here or any rights as a citizen. Other people get caught up arguing against that and forget that they're people with human rights. Sucks to be him, but hey, you could've died... OT: Why don't you get out of this thread and go defend Aaron Rodgers some more? I think we showed that despite all of the BS we hear, our medical community went above and beyond, knowing that he'd never be paying a dime.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) Seems like they did quite a lot for him. Certainly on a personal level I feel badly for his situation, but I also think this was the best way to handle it. They spent gobs of money and time to get him stable, and then sent him home. I think the advocate's statement that he was treated like garbage is absurd. He's here illegally, he broke the law and gambled, and he lost. That loss should not be extended to the rest of the country. He is owed nothing, but received a lot. Well said, I agree.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 11:05 AM) I use moviephone all the time for my movie time searching. Mapquest I don't use, but it's like a yahoo/google thing. People have their preference and they stick with it. I think those are two valuable assets they have, and they just added a third. Financially they're paying for prior bad decisions, but they're improving that situation now I think. And who knows if 350 million is overpaying. How could you know? Do you know what the ad revenue she was generating? Clearly enough to sell her one-time small blog for that much. I said I didn't know what HuffPo was generating, but my guess is AOL still way overpaid, as they have a history of doing so...besides, anytime you buy out a company, you overpay for it, it's called the premium...how much of a premium is the question...and we'll know in the weeks to come.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) They own mapquest, moviephone and now the huffington post. That's how many hundreds of millions of site visits a day? They're far from "done." Visits per day mean nothing. Their dwindling profits and money losing ventures are why they're done. Moviephone? Seriously, they were big in 1997, they're nothing now. Do they even make money with this? Mapquest? Nobody uses mapquest. Again, wheres the money from these millions of hits per day? Huffington Post is good, but they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for something that cost 1 million to start...again, they overpaid...I haven't looked at Huffposts books, so I don't know how profitable this company is, and I don't know if they're growing in profits, etc... Profits mean everything. Site visits, which you quote, mean s***. AOL's current earnings per share for end 2010: NEGATIVE $7.43. Yea, your right, they're not done...they're doing swimmingly well!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 5, 2011 -> 09:55 AM) If it was this difficult to do a half-ass overhaul of the insurance system then what this whole 2-year ordeal has taught me is that it's virtually impossible to overhaul the actual healthcare system, even a little. it's never going to happen. It's not impossible. It's just impossible when you consider the source attempting to do it, which completely politicizes the entire process. And therein lies the problem: Politicians talk a big game about making "tough choices", but none of them ever actually make these "tough choices", because it would mean a one-and-done term for them, and possibly end their "career". The taxpayers don't want the tough decisions either, and they'd kick anyone out of office that makes them. Being a politician has become a career, which is the source of the entire problem...if you finally got elected to a power position after years of glad handing, favors, etc., making the changes necessary to overhaul this system would get you removed from office, and possibly end your "career" with it, something no politician will ever do.

AOL is done, and has been for a while.

The consequence is that people won't trust you, make deals with you, etc...it's a reputation thing, not a "it's not a big deal thing" as most of you are making it. It has nothing to do with should/could, it has everything to do with showing the rest of the world they can't trust you. That said, people seem to have a problem knowing what these leaks/cables really are, and a disturbing trend I see is that people are accepting them as "pure fact", when they aren't. They're a mass of he said/she said, and nothing more. It's very possible that things are said and done on purpose to deceive, knowing these cables occur (as they've been occurring for decades)...cables are not 100% fact, it's something someone said, and it may or may not even be true. I'm quite disturbed that everyone seems to think that anything in a 'cable' is fact or truth, and they're just taking it all at face value.

I missed no days of work...I worked from home all week...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 3, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) The ACORN Pimp/Ho road show is back, and the new target is Planned Parenthood. Turns out "Live Action" went to 13 different Planned Parenthood centers across the Northeast with cameras posing as a pimp trafficking underage prostitutes and wanted information on abortion. They released a video where the counselor made some improper and unethical counsel to these people. The Planned Parenthood employee? Fired upon discovery of the remarks. The FBI, by the way, was also notified of these unusual visits, because Planned Parenthood generally errs on the side of caution when it comes to human trafficking. I think we can all agree, that no medical professional should act illegally when counselling patients about reproductive health, or any personal health issues for that matter. But because of this "sting" operation, designed to get an organization in trouble unnecessarily, the FBI is now spending extra resources investigating a potential child trafficking organization that doesn't really exist and that's kind of horrifying. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110202/us_nm/us_abortion_video For the record, fully two thirds of Planned Parenthood services entail STD Screening and STD/Pregnancy Prevention and Education. Another 17% of it is cancer screening. Abortion related services entail just 3% of what this organization does. Aren't they also anti-abortion? From what I've heard, they try to talk people out of having abortions...but that's just rumor, I don't know because I'm not a woman, and I've never tried to have an abortion via Planned Parenthood. Sounds to me like they should rename the service from Planned Partenthood to "STD screenings and Pregnancy Prevention"...which sounds nothing like planning to be a parent aka "Planned Parenthood".

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 3, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) You say the bill fails on all fronts, is that based on the portions you understand, the portions you don't understand, or the portions that affect your employer? Like I've said, repeatedly, from the very beginning, there are some parts of this law (it's not a bill anymore), that ARE and will continue to be good. Things like pre-existing conditions not affecting your ability to get insurance, lifetime maximums, etc. These are the same bullet points everyone talks about when discussing this law. These are good things. What I can say, with certainty, is that the bills we receive from doctors, hospitals, and drug companies have gone up (not down), and continue to do so. Therefore, it's of my opinion that the bill failed, in every way/shape/form, to lower costs, which was the bulk of the entire point in doing this. It did nothing but implement some admittedly necessary reforms on health insurance, but that's all it did. The followup did nothing to curtail the increasing costs of care. Among the key GOOD points: Insurance companies can no longer kick you off their insurance or say no to pre-existing conditions. Meanwhile, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies can CONTINUE to charge whatever they please...and increase what they charge, because they feel like it...therefore the costs of care continue to rise, and the insurance companies have the right to raise premiums to match, which is what they've been doing. The only thing that law prevents them from doing is unjustly raising premiums for no reason...but they have a reason...because the costs keep rising in every other facet of the game. If you can't understand this, stop asking me. I've BEEN telling all of you this from the START, before the bill was even written...and I continue to be right about everything that's happening, whether you like it or not.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 3, 2011 -> 05:41 AM) I am liking the states studying the 10th Amendment and attempting to nullify the law. I like the law, I like even more a legal challenge like this. There are good portions of this law, and those SHOULD remain law, and I hope through all of this they DO remain law. But as for a blanket statement like, "I like the law", all I can say is: no, you don't...you like the few portions of the law everyone likes...and you don't understand anything else about it (just like everyone else), so stop pretending you "like it all". Aside from the key points the law covers, which happen to be the only bullet points of this law anyone ever talks about, I guarantee now, the rest of it's a bunch of garbage designed to siphon money from the system. Insurance reform (and take this from a person working in health insurance) was necessary. But in the end, this bill fails on almost all other fronts...it does nothing to lower the cost of care/drugs/etc (despite people claiming it does, just knock it off, because it doesn't)...so it fails on almost all necessary fronts.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 10:58 AM) Be my friend? LOL, well, what's your FB, I'll send request...

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 09:11 AM) Hey Y2HH, why don't you have a Facebook page? Too many privacy issues, or the mind-numbing statuses and games? I do have a FB page, but I don't advertise it. And I block all apps/games on it, and have my profile as locked down as possible.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 29, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) I am not even talking about leaving the firewall, the internet has nothing to do with what I was describing above. And I know its not new, grid computing and the mainframe did alot of this many many years back. However the increase in virtualization enhancements has made the "cloud" alot easier for corporations to use. For example, I can drag a drop an entire application stack (server, routers, firewall, load balancer etc) on one console and deploy this application in mere minutes without moving a single box around. That is an amazing enhancement and is part of this concept of the "cloud". This process with applications tied to specific pieces of hardware was not only expensive, but time consuming for companies for years. I can show you a 100% virtualized infrastructure of a company located in the loop and show you a 50% reduction in spending overall in their data center and throughout their organization. They are also using a greater percentage of their hardware assets and ensuring a much high level of service to their business. It is all because of this cloud concept, and most of the benfit comes from the internal cloud. As for the external cloud, or the new concept of grid computing, I think there are some cost benefits of the SaaS marketplace and also remote capacity, but like you said, alot of this has been done before in outsourcing movements. Most of the cost benefits I have been seeing have been from people treating hardware like a commodity and making the movement and performance of applications fluid. I spoke with a CIO from a fortune 500 company a few months back he told me that his philosophy is that he doesnt give a s*** where the applications are running and what they are running on, if a server goes down he wants a new one to spin up instantly. All he cares about is the level of service that is being delivered to the business and as long as that does suffer, he wants costs to be cut down as far as they can be. Are you a salesman, by chance? Because you sound like one. I'm not saying it's a bad thing...but engineers and salesmen don't mix well when they're trying to discuss the Internet/Cloud, etc. This discussion will go the way of oil and water. I wasn't just speaking about the firewall in specific, I was making a point that I'm a touch (A LOT) more advanced than a normal end user, and once again, every single thing you described is exactly the same to me, whether it be an "internal cloud" or "external cloud", it's STILL packet switching between network segments beneath all the fancy lingo, hype and buzz words you can come up with. My point in all of this is that "cloud" is merely the latest, and interchangeable buzz word for "packet switching", and sounds newer than saying cyberspace/internet/info. superhighway. It doesn't matter if it's a server in China or sitting right next to your desk, it's STILL packet switching via transmission control, and that's STILL the base idea of the "Internet/Cloud/Information Superhighway/etc". There is no distinguishable difference, whether it's virtualized or not, whether it's local or remote. It's still the base idea behind the Internet, and it's still exactly as I said above, a completely interchangeable word with any of the other historic buzz words used to describe it. An application stack? An application has nothing to do with a firewall, which has nothing to do with a router, and so on. These devices serve completely different ends on completely different layers of TCP. This is pure sales speak, because it means nothing to the people who implement and understand how it really works. If I had to guess, this buzzword is being borrowed from the often incorrectly used "TCP stack" OSI model. A firewall/load balancer/router/application all on the same box, not to mention virtualized, is a massive clusterf*** of fail, and completely destroys the necessity of the firewall in the first place. I've been to plenty of sales meetings where they try to sell this garbage for years on end, showing the massive cost savings, and it's summarily dismissed. There is a reason we want, and insist, on keeping some of these tasks separated, and virtualizing all of them artificially removes this separation of duty and opens the potential of bypass via bridging or other means. Again, this is no different than "cloud storage", or tossing "email on the cloud", virtualization CAN BE good if used properly...but arbitrarily tossing every layer of the network onto one virtual box is beyond fail. There ARE things virualization is good for, just as there are things "the cloud" is good for, and then there are things it's not good for, and what you described above as "an application stack" is an example of what virtualization it's NOT good for.

And keep in mind, like I said, the cloud hype is a pet peeve of mine, so I find the new overuse of the word highly annoying. I hated cyberspace. I hated information superhighway. ...and now I hate cloud. The words are merely interchangeable, and like I said, and mean the same thing. We store our email on the cloud = We store our email in cyberspace = we store our email on the internet, etc. You can replace email with servers, backups, processing, etc...that was my point. A modern -- and annoying -- re-branding of the same old.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) Yeah, it would be nice if we could make the stock market magically work perfectly for us I never asked for anything to work perfectly. I merely said I wish the market was down, because that's when I buy...so while I'm still in my investment for the future years (now), I'd prefer it be down. Until you are getting ready to sell, it doesn't matter how much it's worth (outside of an emergency scenario, which is besides the point).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 29, 2011 -> 10:19 AM) Eh, you are simplifying it based on your needs as and end user. Cloud computing nowadays is quite a bit more complicated than file shares and hosted applications. With advances in virtualization and processing pools internally and externally, the cloud has some real financial benefit to companies that have usage spikes once in awhile. Dumb terminal computing was just having your applications on a server insteads of the end users PC's, virtualization has actually disconnected the application entirely from that server as now you can virtualize the entire stack and move it dynamically across external or internal boundaries without service disruption. And that's just a piece of what cloud is. Cloud doesn't necessarily mean the Internet at all. I'm not an end user, I'm a senior security analyst, dealing in internet/packet switching security (firewalls), VPN's, load balanced applications, in, around, and on the Internet (cloud), and have been for a number of years. I've done remote administration, virtualization, storage, all of it...I know the different uses of this "cloud", and they haven't changed by design or concept from the beginning (I've been on the internet since 1992, and before that a heavy user of BBS's). It's all packet switching at it's most basic level, regardless of what fancy term is slapped on it. I'm not simplifying it, I'm simply dispelling all the modern sales-speak bulls*** that's being created to make it sound like some new concept. The "cloud" CAN have a cost benefit if used properly...however, arbitrarily moving things to the cloud will not result in savings and more often than not, it will result in a loss. Some things make sense, others do not. There are times that remote storage and remote processing can be beneficial, but most of the time, it's not, as bandwidth costs often exceed the cost of the raw hardware over time. The internet *is* the cloud, they mean the same thing...everything you just described is merely ANOTHER use of the Internet. The internet is not the web, it's not email, it's not virtualization...it's ALL of that, and it ALWAYS has been all of that. Just because people are discovering new uses for the Internet/Cloud/Info. Superhighway/Cyberspace (which aren't new, as I said), doesn't make it new. These uses have always been there both in reality and in potential, and yes, like a user above said, modern bandwidth is making these uses more visible...but beneath it all, they've always been there...that was the idea behind the design of packet switching in the first place: You can be anywhere and do anything on such a network... But it's still not new.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 29, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) I'll do ours tomorrow night. At least I get 30% back on the f***ing furnace I bought last month. I do, too...I had a 95% efficiency installed...tax break and it lowered by gas bill considerably.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2011 -> 12:47 PM) Seemingly thanks to the possible revolution in Egypt, the markets have retreated from your guys' numbers, the S&P is down to 1275-ish. Honestly, I'd prefer it if the S&P was down at it's 2008 lows and stayed there for the next 10 years or so. That way I could buy way more S&P500 index in my 401k for the next decade and have it go way up and make a ton of money. Buy low. Buy BEFORE it's high. People, for some reason, do this completely backwards with everything market related. They only want to get involved when it's already high. Look at the fools buying into the Gold craze. Buying gold now is foolish...it's already too high, you needed to buy gold 10 years ago when it was at 300, not now when it's at 1300.

Still waiting on a lot of my tax information.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jan 28, 2011 -> 06:57 PM) To be fair, the concept is the same, but the implementation is different. Remote storage was originally for websites rather than users. Saving pictures and video remotely is a recent trend. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 29, 2011 -> 07:45 AM) As Microsoft is advertising it, yeah, that's all it is. But the move towards "cloud computing" is starting, at least in some places. Even CAD companies like Dassault (CATIA, Solidworks) are investing in developing cloud-based CAD system. Cloud computing is another word for dumb terminal computing...a concept that's been around from the start of the Internet. It's not new. The implementation is not new, either... It's just re-branded and called 'cloud' now. Just because people have "finally caught on" to storing video/pictures remotely doesn't make it new. I've been doing it for over a decade now.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 28, 2011 -> 01:13 PM) I thought they were referring to cloud storage. Which is the same as remote access to said storage. It's one of the base concepts of the Internet and has been from the start, they're just kept on re-branding it rather annoyingly.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 28, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) Microsoft's "to the cloud" thing is the most disgusting ad. I puke every time I see it. From their ad I'd think that the cloud is some photo editing software. The entire "cloud" hysteria going on right now is a pet peeve of mine. As replace "cloud" with "cyberspace" or "information superhighway" or "internet" and um...it's the SAME f***ING THING, and has been from the start. Every website in the world has run on "the cloud" from the get go...rephrasing it as if it's some new technology is annoying to me. It's a silly re-branding of "remote access", and I hate it.