Windows 8
-
@Cassidy said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@blakeyrat said:
This Internet behavior of, "I'm going to buy the product but spend all my time bitching about how much it sucks" is wholly new and strange to me. Why would you do that? Are you retarded? I'll go with "retarded" until someone presents a better theory.
You're forgetting recreational bitching.That.
This behaviour existed long before the internet - the interwebz have just raised its profile. Same as "cyberstalking" - it's called "bullying" and it doesn't require Facebook or Myspace et al.
Wait a minute. In high school I was a bully and even if I forgot 99% of the misery I inflicted upon others, I am pretty sure this was a totally different experience for them than having someone complain about Windows 8.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Use the product you're criticizing, dumbfuck. Or I'll come in here and call you a "dumbfuck" when you write ignorant bullshit you copied from Slashdot about it.
Shut the hell up, dumbfuck. I've used Vista since it was released, up until the release of win7. Both points I brought forth are based on personal experience. I used Vista and 7 on the same PC, which ran a whole lot smoother under win7. Other applications had more resources, meaning the OS used less (Go on, be pedantic; there's a difference between 'using less' and 'allocating more to other processes...'). Point 2: File copy was only an example, and it wasn't, as Dhromed put it, 'slightly faster', it copied the contents of a USB drive at less than 1/3rd the tme it took Vista. if you manage to fuck up something as basic as file copying, what else is crappy? Oh wait, just about everything... (I'd put in a mandatory XKCD reference if it weren;t considered a Godwin around here - but it's true)As you may have noticed, I have yet to criticize anything about win8, so why are you being such a hard-ass on me in the first place? Dumbfuck...
-
@steenbergh said:
Point 2: File copy was only an example, and it wasn't, as Dhromed put it, 'slightly faster', it copied the contents of a USB drive at less than 1/3rd the tme it took Vista.
If you've actually used Vista, and I doubt you have, you'd know that the file copy problem was:
1) A bug, not anything inherent to Vista
2) Fixed like two weeks after Vista was releasedWhich is why I think your complaining is shit. You either never bothered to patch an obvious bug, the first bug fixed with Vista, or you're just parroting the complaints you saw on Slashdot and assuming we're too fucking stupid to call you on it.
Oh and this:
@steenbergh said:
I used Vista and 7 on the same PC, which ran a whole lot smoother under win7. Other applications had more resources, meaning the OS used less (Go on, be pedantic; there's a difference between 'using less' and 'allocating more to other processes...').
I'm 99% sure this is the result of you not knowing how to read the Task Manager memory read-out in Vista, which didn't have a separate category for "available" like Windows 7 has. Resource usage between Vista and Windows 7 identical with two exceptions:
1) Vista's cache loader was very aggressive, and Windows 7's is not.
2) Vista's search indexer was also very aggressive, and Windows 7's is not.Those two points could lead to Vista chugging, if (and only if) you frequently rebooted it. For normal users, both of those processes were done 10 minutes after booting and from that point on Vista and Windows 7 have identical performance.
@steenbergh said:
As you may have noticed, I have yet to criticize anything about win8, so why are you being such a hard-ass on me in the first place?
Because you're wrong, and you're talking shit about an OS you're completely ignorant of and have obviously never used. Despite your claims.
-
@steenbergh said:
File copy was only an example, and it wasn't, as Dhromed put it, 'slightly faster', it copied the contents of a USB drive at less than 1/3rd the tme it took Vista. if you manage to fuck up something as basic as file copying, what else is crappy?
IIRC the problem was that audio had higher priority than network or I/O so copying or downloading was slower when listening to music. Or something like that.
-
RE: NT/2k
These were not aimed at ordinary end users, the pattern I describe relates to ordinary home users.
RE: File copy in vista.
This one really gets me, cus it was obviously totally broken and it took ages to copy files.. so I had a winge to some people. I was at this meeting with mark russinovich one time and he had the nerve to say that Vista just 'appeared slower' and it was purely pyschological. (This was just after sysinternals had been bought out by MS)
I couldn't help but point out "Mark, I own a stopwatch, shut up."
-
@PJH said:
Remember when 'hacking' meant programming instead of illicit access to others' systems (cracking)?
I remember when it was used in journalism - someone would "hack out a story" and reporters were called "hacks". I got the impression it was a degradatory term showing the lack of finesse compared to a proper "scribe" - those reporters were unprofessional and ham-fisted, producing hatchet jobs.
Then it became used in the IT industry, where a hacker was a skilled programmer that knew their way around a system pretty well. I'm not sure if it was coined due to the frantic typing associated with a skilled dev, or if someone infiltrating a system required damned good working knowledge, i.e. hacker-level skillset.
I prefer "cracker" to distinguish between someone skilled and someone gaining unauthorised access - at least then Billy Skript Kiddiot isn't accused of actually having talent.
@PJH said:
Same is happening with 'troll.' Used to mean people being deliberately provocative - now it means (in the UK red-tops anyway) what most of us would call either 'having a different opinion' or 'bulllying' depending on circumstance.
I wasn't aware of the latter. Trolling I still understand to be provocative, but I'm guessing those being easy targets and getting wound up as a result will accuse the troll of being a bully, and at some point conflation arose. I can see how some trolls are bullies, but it's possible to be a bully without trolling.
And as for having a different opinion, that's just --
-- fuck it.. HAVE I JUST BEEN TROLLED? DAMN!
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
In high school I was a bully and even if I forgot 99% of the misery I inflicted upon others, I am pretty sure this was a totally different experience for them than having someone complain about Windows 8.
How would you know? Have you inflicted Win8 upon someone recently and felt the same HiSchool adrenaline rush?
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Wait a minute. In high school I was a bully
Well that explains a lot about your current odious personality.
-
@Cassidy said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
In high school I was a bully and even if I forgot 99% of the misery I inflicted upon others, I am pretty sure this was a totally different experience for them than having someone complain about Windows 8.
How would you know? Have you inflicted Win8 upon someone recently and felt the same HiSchool adrenaline rush?
Bullying does not cause an adrenaline rush. Bullying is simply what you get when you combine above average physical strength and lack of empathy.
-
@Zylon said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Wait a minute. In high school I was a bully
Well that explains a lot about your current odious personality.It's almost cute the way you often try to pick a fight or annoy people but without any success whatsoever. It's like this kitty my grandmother used to have, he would try to bite people fingers but his jaw was not strong enough to hurt.
-
@Xyro said:
@FrostCat said:
I can't see what your beef with resizing apps is, unless it's the general idea of not being able to do it. You're not supposed to resize apps.
Sounds like they ought to rename the OS to "Window" instead."Apps" means Metro apps, which are meant to be run full-screen, just like phone apps.
People can argue whether or not it makes sense to have 'em on a desktop OS, but that's the model.
-
@PJH said:
@FrostCat said:
Considering every 'cancel' button on those screens took me back to 'enter your email address' and I couldn't go one step further back, I don't think I am. Perhaps if my VM hadn't been connected to the internet I might not have been asked in the first place, but - no. I *had* to enter an email address to progress with the installation.@PJH said:
@pbean said:
I can strongly recommend downloading the Release Preview and installing it (for example using VirtualBox)
Well did so, and the first WTF I noticed was while installing (and choosing the 'advanced' setup if that's relevant.) They (1) require an email address to "sign into Windows 8. We won't send you spam" (you can't skip this bit)I stopped reading here because you're wrong.
I am at this very minute sitting at the "Sign in to your PC" screen (in a VM) and at the bottom there is a "Sign in without a Microsoft Account" link at the bottom of the screen. Having already done this on another computer yesterday I am absolutely certain it works in the Release Preview (at least the 32-bit version.) I don't remember if this was an option or not in the Consumer Preview.
-
@EncoreSpod said:
RE: NT/2k
These were not aimed at ordinary end users, the pattern I describe relates to ordinary home users.
RE: File copy in vista.
This one really gets me, cus it was obviously totally broken and it took ages to copy files.. so I had a winge to some people. I was at this meeting with mark russinovich one time and he had the nerve to say that Vista just 'appeared slower' and it was purely pyschological. (This was just after sysinternals had been bought out by MS)
I couldn't help but point out "Mark, I own a stopwatch, shut up."
And? XP/Vista/7/8 are aimed at the home user as well as the corporate user. You're just omitting data points which don't fit your rationale - which is one of the better trolling tactics, mind. Doesn't make your "pattern" any more real, though. Not to mention that you never actually talked about this being a "pattern for end users".
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Bullying is simply what you get when you combine above average physical strength and lack of empathy.
Meh, I don't think physical strength is a pre-requisite for bullying.
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Bullying does not cause an adrenaline rush.
Yessss, I know. I was likening it to that euphoric buzz people feel when experiencing triumph, as though bullying actions have some purpose in mind and achieved an aim. Glad to have taken the time to clarify that.
-
@Cassidy said:
I wasn't aware of the latter. Trolling I still understand to be provocative, but I'm guessing those being easy targets
Yup. Easy targets like those in the public eye, e.g. politicians. Louise Mensch. Perpetrator was bullying, not trolling, yet he gets called a troll. Because it happened to a politician, we now "need laws against trolling."
-
@FrostCat said:
Didn't notice such a button the (one) time I did it. If I had, I'd have used that.I am at this very minute sitting at the "Sign in to your PC" screen (in a VM) and at the bottom there is a "Sign in without a Microsoft Account" link at the bottom of the screen.
Regardless, having got to the the path of screens that require the sign-in, there were no buttons to go back to select the path that didn't require a sign-in.
-
@Cassidy said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Bullying is simply what you get when you combine above average physical strength and lack of empathy.
Meh, I don't think physical strength is a pre-requisite for bullying.Bulk and Skull were both bullies in Power Rangers. QED.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Cassidy said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Bullying is simply what you get when you combine above average physical strength and lack of empathy.
Meh, I don't think physical strength is a pre-requisite for bullying.Bulk and Skull were both bullies in Power Rangers. QED.
Weak. From The Universal Truth: "Bulk was the dominant member of the duo, and Skull would usually follow and attempt to emulate Bulk."
And besides, anyone being bullied by a scrawny kid is a wimp. Unless the kid has an uncle in the mob or a nasty big brother, in which case it is a form of bullying by proxy, which does not count.
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Weak. From The Universal Truth: "Bulk was the dominant member of the duo, and Skull would usually follow and attempt to emulate Bulk."
Bulk wasn't "above average physical strength", though. He was fat and out of shape. Many jokes played on that when he tried to do marshal arts as comedy relief. Skull was skinny as a rail. Thus: QED.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
Weak. From The Universal Truth: "Bulk was the dominant member of the duo, and Skull would usually follow and attempt to emulate Bulk."
Bulk wasn't "above average physical strength", though. He was fat and out of shape. Many jokes played on that when he tried to do marshal arts as comedy relief. Skull was skinny as a rail. Thus: QED.
Based on this overwhelming evidence it appears that my definition of bullying is not accurate. However, I maintain that bullying people does not cause an adrenaline rush, not for the bully anyhow.
Also who cares about Bulk and Skull, we all know there was only ONE important character in that series and by bringing this up you just caused me to go and get a wallpaper of her.
-
@PJH said:
Perpetrator was bullying, not trolling, yet he gets called a troll
Technically he was doing both (the content of his tweet was intended to provoke a reaction) but as you linked to the Daily Fail I have an overwhelming urge to sidle with the "gutter press jourlanists are misusing terminology once again" crowd.
By the looks of the comments below, there's several members already.
@Speakerphone Dude said:
However, I maintain that bullying people does not cause an adrenaline rush, not for the bully anyhow.
Oh, Jesus Christ. Yes, I think we've established that. Next time I'll use the term "euphoric satisfaction" and "pop a boner" so you can discuss the finer details about how bullying doesn't cheer anyone up nor causes sexual arousal - just in case there's a remote possibility of someone conflating cause and effect.
-
@Zemm said:
@El_Heffe said:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it
Or even Mac in the 1980s:
Or even Windows in the 80s:
-
@FrostCat said:
Everythign here is true, but MS could make it more discoverable. Most of the stuff like "swipe down apps" I had to discover by reading the B8 blog.
His bitching about the task manager is that by default it just shows you a list of app names and "advanced" and "close" buttons. I'll bet he doesn't even know why MS did that. I wonder if he saw the advanced view, which is far better than the current one.
i never used metro before. I saw with mouve up screen a hand, my natural question was "what happen if i drag the hand", i saw a small version of my app moving around screen, my second question was, what happen if a drop it somewhere on the screen.
i do not like windows in general, i find this interface (metro) pretty useless beyonf basic web browsing of simple document editing, but i have to admit it's quite fast and easy to learn.
-
-
@pbean said:
Anyone tried Windows 8 yet? I can strongly recommend downloading the Release Preview and installing it
-1 for leaving us to guess what the poster happens to consider WTF-worthy
-∞ for requiring us to download and setup a f-ing full install of Windows to even try to find out
-
" I can't see what your beef with resizing apps is, unless it's the general idea of not being able to do it. You're not supposed to resize apps."
WTF? If its true that resizing apps is impossible in Win8 (I haven't tried it), then you are insane for suggesting resizing apps is not needed.
I mean, I already decided not to even try Win8 due to its visual design and clear decision to make it optimal for tablets (and not for desktop which is what I am actually using), but non-resizing just takes the cake. Lets not even talk about multi-monitor setups (which I have both at home and at work).
Windows Metro, Linux Unity, Gnome 3... is everyone insane? :/
-
@Shinhan7 said:
(and not for desktop which is what I am actually using)
That's just the new startmenuscreenthing. You still have a normal Aero desktop where normal applications take place.
@Shinhan7 said:
but non-resizing just takes the cake
Apps as in those fullscreen mobile-app-like applications, not desktop applications like, erm, well, everything.
@Shinhan7 said:
Windows Metro, Linux Unity, Gnome 3... is everyone insane? :/
There seems to be this Perfect Storm of influences going around that causes people to start experimenting with UI stuff until it goes off the charts.
It'll quiet down in a bit and people will collect themselves and sanity will return.
-
@Shinhan7 said:
Windows Metro, Linux Unity, Gnome 3... is everyone insane? :/
Yes. Everybody is insane. It's impossible that GUIs are actually experimenting and trying new things. And it's definitely impossible that you're a crotchety senior citizen who hates any change whatsoever and refuses to even try to learn something new. You have hit the nail on the head: the only possible explanation is a epidemic of sudden insanity.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
the only possible explanation is a epidemic of sudden insanity.
The GOP sure is.I know, right? They totally need to get on the unlimited government express. At least the trains could then run on time.
-
@dhromed said:
30 tries by the house to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing in this political environment it will never make it. Trying again today (dunno if today's makes 30 or 31). The purest example of insanity.@blakeyrat said:
the only possible explanation is a epidemic of sudden insanity.
The GOP sure is.
-
@nonpartisan said:
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
30 tries by the house to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing in this political environment it will never make it. Trying again today (dunno if today's makes 30 or 31). The purest example of insanity.the only possible explanation is a epidemic of sudden insanity.
The GOP sure is.
I don't remember that many attempts (though I wouldn't doubt there were lots of procedural things), but your analysis is obviously wrong.
It's true that the attempt to repeal will ultimately be unsuccessful, but is should be obvious that defeat of the bill will not be the only result. Since the law has never had popular support, if nothing else it can either get some Democrats on record as supporting it or opposing it. If they support, that could be used against them in a campaign. If they oppose, that can be used against the President in his campaign. And lots of secondary effects like support for campaign fund raising and yet another demonstration of the obstructionist Democrat Senate.
-
@boomzilla said:
A couple of different news reports today said 30, one on our local news station, one on CNN. Of course, that number was probably from the same source in each report.I don't remember that many attempts (though I wouldn't doubt there were lots of procedural things), but your analysis is obviously wrong.
It's true that the attempt to repeal will ultimately be unsuccessful, but is should be obvious that defeat of the bill will not be the only result. Since the law has never had popular support, if nothing else it can either get some Democrats on record as supporting it or opposing it. If they support, that could be used against them in a campaign. If they oppose, that can be used against the President in his campaign. And lots of secondary effects like support for campaign fund raising and yet another demonstration of the obstructionist Democrat Senate.
I understand why they do it. I could even understanding doing it a few times -- maybe take a new vote whenever there's turnover (a Congresscritter is indicted, or resigns, or both, or <insert reason here> . . . and gets replaced) so they get the position of the new Congresscritter on record. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time and it ends up looking like the Republicans are so focused on one issue that they can't get anything else done. And then when Republicans have the power the tables are turned.
*sigh* Why can't we all just get along?
-
@boomzilla said:
@nonpartisan said:
The other benefit of doing it 30+ times is in the political commercials they can say things like: "On 30 different occassion senator X voted to keep a bill that would tax poor working class americans <Queue montage of poor working class americans>" or "On 30 different occassion senator X voted to destroy a bill that would deny poor working class americans access to health care <Queue montage of poor working class americans>".@dhromed said:
I don't remember that many attempts (though I wouldn't doubt there were lots of procedural things), but your analysis is obviously wrong.@blakeyrat said:
30 tries by the house to repeal the Affordable Care Act, knowing in this political environment it will never make it. Trying again today (dunno if today's makes 30 or 31). The purest example of insanity.the only possible explanation is a epidemic of sudden insanity.
The GOP sure is.It's true that the attempt to repeal will ultimately be unsuccessful, but is should be obvious that defeat of the bill will not be the only result. Since the law has never had popular support, if nothing else it can either get some Democrats on record as supporting it or opposing it. If they support, that could be used against them in a campaign. If they oppose, that can be used against the President in his campaign. And lots of secondary effects like support for campaign fund raising and yet another demonstration of the obstructionist Democrat Senate.
-
@Anketam said:
"On 30 different occassion senator X voted to destroy a bill that would deny poor working class americans access to health care <Queue montage of poor working class americans>".
?
The bill provides access to healthcare, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but then it's five o' clock and I'm tired.
-
@nonpartisan said:
Otherwise, it's just a waste of time and it ends up looking like the Republicans are so focused on one issue that they can't get anything else done.
Firstly, I would posit that the most productive thing Congress can do is waste its time doing something other than actually passing laws. But amazingly, Harry Reid (Democrat, Senate Leader) has pretty much gotten a free pass for simply not allowing so many things to even come up for a vote.
@nonpartisan said:
sigh Why can't we all just get along?
Because the other guys are evil idots. Duh.
But I think Windows 8 is blameless here. This is totally Vista's fault.
-
@dhromed said:
@Anketam said:
"On 30 different occassion senator X voted to destroy a bill that would deny poor working class americans access to health care <Queue montage of poor working class americans>".
?
The bill provides access to healthcare, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but then it's five o' clock and I'm tired.
No it doesn't. It changes the way people can buy health insurance (which, let's be honest, mostly isn't really insurance), generally making it more expensive, though it also tries to subsidize people with lower incomes. Of course, in many ways it also makes the actual health care more expensive (e.g., through new taxes on medical devices). And health insurance is not the same as health care in any case. Oh, yeah, it also sets up a board whose job it will be to determine what sort of health care won't be paid for by Medicare.
But no small summary can do justice to a 2700 page bill that mostly calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make rules on how health care can be financed.
-
@dhromed said:
The bill provides access to healthcare
Sadly, no. It just requires it, puts a few constraints (not all bad ones) on the insurance providers, forces States to engage in gubrmint-run exchanges, and adds new taxes. A couple other odds and ends, too, but it doesn't actually provide what is needed. The big stuff is all about heath insurance, not actual healthcare, nor the overwhelming structural problems it faces in America. This distinction is rarely made by political talkers and news talkers.Not that any of it matters, anyhow, because Federal entitlements programs so incredibly vastly outspends tax revenue that we're all enslaved to our society's debt, as will be our progeny for many generations.
If Microsoft wasn't pushing experimental GUIs onto their production OS that gets bought by business users, none of this would have happened.
-
@boomzilla said:
No it doesn't. It changes the way people can buy health insurance (which, let's be honest, mostly isn't really insurance), generally making it more expensive, though it also tries to subsidize people with lower incomes. Of course, in many ways it also makes the actual health care more expensive (e.g., through new taxes on medical devices). And health insurance is not the same as health care in any case. Oh, yeah, it also sets up a board whose job it will be to determine what sort of health care won't be paid for by Medicare.
There's a theory that the real purpose of the bill is to make things so bad that they'll be able to implement the single-payer (there's a disingenuous euphemism for you) system that they really wanted in the first place.But no small summary can do justice to a 2700 page bill that mostly calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make rules on how health care can be financed.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@boomzilla said:
No it doesn't. It changes the way people can buy health insurance (which, let's be honest, mostly isn't really insurance), generally making it more expensive, though it also tries to subsidize people with lower incomes. Of course, in many ways it also makes the actual health care more expensive (e.g., through new taxes on medical devices). And health insurance is not the same as health care in any case. Oh, yeah, it also sets up a board whose job it will be to determine what sort of health care won't be paid for by Medicare.
There's a theory that the real purpose of the bill is to make things so bad that they'll be able to implement the single-payer (there's a disingenuous euphemism for you) system that they really wanted in the first place.But no small summary can do justice to a 2700 page bill that mostly calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make rules on how health care can be financed.
Nah, the reason is that Obama really wanted to spend more than Bush and he won. $1.116 trillion more per year without even starting a new war. Yes we can!
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
@Zylon said:
Well that explains a lot about your current odious personality.[quote user="Speakerphone Dude"]Wait a minute. In high school I was a bully
It's almost cute the way you often try to pick a fight or annoy people but without any success whatsoever. It's like this kitty my grandmother used to have, he would try to bite people fingers but his jaw was not strong enough to hurt.[/quote]
Behold the typical dunderheaded bully psychology. From his myopic perspective every affront is "You wanna fight? Huh? Let's fight! Yeah! Fight!", whereas all the other person wants is to remove an annoying semi-sentient zit. That's you. An unfunny, obnoxious, tiresome, trolling, Facebook-linking, arm-flailing, repetitive pimple upon this forum. Christ, you're almost worse than blakeyrat.
-
@Zylon said:
@Speakerphone Dude said:
@Zylon said:
Well that explains a lot about your current odious[quote
user="Speakerphone Dude"]Wait a minute. In high school I was a
bully
personality.It's almost cute the way you often try to pick a fight or annoy people but without any success whatsoever. It's like this kitty my grandmother used to have, he would try to bite people fingers but his jaw was not strong enough to hurt.
Behold the typical dunderheaded bully psychology. From his myopic perspective every affront is "You wanna fight? Huh? Let's fight! Yeah! Fight!", whereas all the other person wants is to remove an annoying semi-sentient zit. That's you. An unfunny, obnoxious, tiresome, trolling, Facebook-linking, arm-flailing, repetitive pimple upon this forum. Christ, you're almost worse than blakeyrat.
[/quote]
-
Children, children, go play outside; the sun is shining!
-
-
@dhromed said:
FTFM@Anketam said:
"On 30 different occassion senator X voted to destroy a bill, and thus would deny poor working class americans access to health care <Queue montage of poor working class americans>".
?
The bill provides access to healthcare, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, but then it's five o' clock and I'm tired.
It made sense when I first wrote it, but I realize I did not communicate it well. >_<
-
@Anketam said:
It made sense when I first wrote it, but I realize I did not communicate it well. >_<
Just like the actual law?
-
@Speakerphone Dude said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
Disagree with both of you, it is all political posturing. They create bills that are 10% good, 10% bad, and 80% wtf (Which part is good and which part is bad is based on your views). One side will focus on the 10% for their side and blame the 80% wtf part on the other side. This allows both sides to use the same bill to attack the other side's candidates during an election year. Even if I was for some of the measures, the bills these politicians write are just of such poor quality that I would still be against them. One point at my church a committee proposed an update to the church's bylaws, but despite the fact I was for the change, they used such poor wording that it could easily be misinterpreted, so I voted against it.@boomzilla said:
Nah, the reason is that Obama really wanted to spend more than Bush and he won. $1.116 trillion more per year without even starting a new war. Yes we can!No it doesn't. It changes the way people can buy health insurance (which, let's be honest, mostly isn't really insurance), generally making it more expensive, though it also tries to subsidize people with lower incomes. Of course, in many ways it also makes the actual health care more expensive (e.g., through new taxes on medical devices). And health insurance is not the same as health care in any case. Oh, yeah, it also sets up a board whose job it will be to determine what sort of health care won't be paid for by Medicare.
There's a theory that the real purpose of the bill is to make things so bad that they'll be able to implement the single-payer (there's a disingenuous euphemism for you) system that they really wanted in the first place.But no small summary can do justice to a 2700 page bill that mostly calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make rules on how health care can be financed.
-
@serguey123 said:
@dhromed said:
Children, children, go play outside; the sun is shining!
You have been warned!The size ratio is way way off.
-
@dhromed said:
The size ratio is way way off.
Forced perspective. Earth is millions of miles in the foreground, blocking the view of an LHC-induced black hole, which the Sun is consuming. (The block hole was transported millions of miles away from earth due to an LHC-induced wormhole. So it worked out. No thanks to the Metro GUI.)
-
@Xyro said:
Forced perspective. Earth is millions of miles in the foreground,
Is the sun-earth distance as we currently know it intact in that picture, or has the earth moved way way closer?
