Dr Brain

So you seem to think that gas prices would drop if the industry were assumed by the government? Lol. What is there to respond to? You seem convinced that public schools need money from people who don't use them, and that public schools are necessary to educate the poor. I disagree on both points. Your post implies (I could be reading it wrong) that I spent two years on a PhD and gave it up. This is not the case. I graduated with my MS and decided not to continue further. I know many PhDs that could solve partial differential equations in their head, but couldn't figure out how to ride a bus. I call that divorced from the real world. If you want to call it divorced from my world, that's fine. Either way, I'd rather live in that world (the one that the PhDs seem to have trouble with). Axiom: Some people hold the same opinions that I do. Assumption: Some of these people with the same opinions that I have work in companies. Axiom: I would prefer to socialize with people that hold the same opinions that I do. Inference: I would prefer to work at a company that employs people with the same opinions that I have. Conclusion: Not getting a PhD betters my chances of being hired by a company that I would prefer to work at. I don't think I can make my motivations more clear than that. If you got your PhD to prove something to yourself, that's fine. Good for you. I didn't have any need to prove something to myself, so that wasn't a motivating factor. I got the education and job opportunities that I wanted with the completion of my MS. In my opinion, further effort would have been wasted. Lets look at your statement that you get paid to get a PhD. I'm assuming you mean as a paid graduate student (this is how I financed my MS). While true, it's misleading. You get paid *more* not to get a PhD and instead get a real job. After the PhD, (if you can get a job that you want, see above), you get paid more than if you had not received a PhD. How long does it take to recover this difference? In the case of a MS vs BS, not long. 5 years is a typically quoted figure. In the case of a MS vs PhD? Much longer. I've heard figures that quote 10-20 years. If you factor in interest, it takes even longer. I made the decision for me and my future. If you're looking for something more, I can't help you.

Solitron, what Cerium understands--and you don't seem to understand--is that Continuum isn't your average exe. Continuum has been specially developed to thwart the average decompiling tool. Also, having the tools isn't enough. You need to know how to use them, and you need to be an expert in a half dozen things. You'll need to know assembly language, you'll need to know C/C++, you'll need to know UDP, you'll need to know encryption, you'll need to know Windows API, and you'll need to know linkers and loaders. There are many more things that you'll need to have a passing knowledge of, but not necessarily be an expert in. From your few posts, you've come across as someone who doesn't even know enough to build a program like Continuum (much less reverse engineer it). You said you know C++, which is the classic mark of a programming newbie. Oldbies usually know enough to say C/C++, or not bring it up at all (especially since it's not very relevant in this context). Reverse engineering is *never* easier. It's only quicker. I've been fairly civil to you in this thread, because I hoped that you'd start working on Continuum, and realize that you'd gotten in over your head. I figured it would be a valuable lesson for you about your own limitations. I hope you'll take this post to heart, and start the decades long process of learning the things you need to know. It will be a slow but rewarding journey. I'd recommend starting with compiler theory, and writing your own C compiler (even a C to asm compiler; there's no need to go straight to the opcodes). That will give you knowledge enough to understand the crux of the problem you're dealing with now.

EE? Neat. I have my MS in Electrical Engineering. Anyway, companies hire you with a degree because the degree changes they way they look at you. If you have the view that people that interview and hire aren't people, then what you say is true.

Huge profits? Why do I have to justify them? I think people should make whatever they can legally make. You're the one that thinks it should be taken away from them, because you know better. You've also stated that you make obscene profits from the stock market. You seem to believe that any profit is a bad thing, and the stock market exists to trade shares of a companies profit. Isn't that hypocritical of you? No. Profit is the expense for hiring the best managers that money can buy. Lowering profit would lower efficiency to the point where they're not selling as much. The system has stabilized. Your interference in the market just destabilizes things. By that argument, this entire forum is pointless. It's probably even true. Yes, politicians are a big part of the problem. Grandchildren, adoption, criminals shouldn't get any benefit for their crime. Wow, so taxes are now a punishment?! I never expected you to admit it. So again, you know what to use my money for better than I do? This paragraph says it all. You know better, so you get to decide how to use my money. I can't decide, because I'm an ignorant hick. It's not my problem that you read so much into my statement that you came to untrue conclusions. I don't have a problem with PhDs looking down on other people (though I've observed that the average PhD tends to do just that). I have a problem with them because they're divorced from the real world to the point of being impotent. I wanted to do serious engineering work, and a PhD could have hampered my job prospects (since employers would know as well as I do that PhDs tend to be divorced from the real world). I didn't feel the two years of investment was worth a negative effect. Yes, it's about how other people look at me (superficial, in your words), but the entire idea of a degree is to change how other people look at you. Did you not change the course of your life to get your PhD (or MD, or DMD, or whatever degree you actually have)? Was that not to change how others looked at you? If you only wanted the education, you would have taken the classes, but you wouldn't have bothered with the honorific degree. I think it's rich of you to call me stupid for doing basically the same thing.

Nah, I'm just tired of letting your hypocrisy slide, and I figured it was time to start calling you on it.

Isn't that the stereotyping you always accuse the right of doing?

Sever, this is clearly a case of your bigotry getting in the way of the obvious.

I agree that it was poorly worded, and a trivially dumb statement. I don't agree with Sever's statement saying that it was spreading racist propaganda about Iran.

If those zones were as great as you seem to think, they never would have died.

Yes, that's the problem I'm talking about. Patients don't see the costs directly. Can you imagine what auto insurance costs would be like if you paid for windshield wiper replacement with your auto insurance? They'd be like health insurance is now. In the few instances that my family have had to go to a hospital, we've always been able to negotiate for a better price, (since we don't have health insurance by choice). The hospitals charge whatever they like, because the insurance always pays for it. When they get someone without insurance, they're happy to give people a good rate (usually between 5% to 10% the "list" price, where a $10,000 bill becomes $500). There have been efforts to reverse this, but the government has shut them down (e.g. http://blog.americanjusticecenter.com/2009/03/state-orders-dr-john-muney-to-stop.html (first article I found on Dr. John Muney, there are probably better ones from more credible sources than an online blog)) Hospitals may never get to the point of being like retail stores, but they'd at least progress further up the chain-of-suck to where auto shops are (giving good rates on labor, but bad rates on parts, since they can't control that).

Drugs and music are monopolies. The music monopoly is starting to break up, thanks to the digital revolution. Gasoline suffers from huge legislative barriers. For example, I believe that there hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years. Many of the prime methods of extracting oil have been banned, for no real reason (not even environmental). I believe the progressive movement benefits from a destruction of the economy, and making oil expensive is one of the best ways to do that. Sneakers, books (excluding text books), cell phones, and bottled water I find to be quite affordable for what they are. Maybe the UK has legislation stopping them from being affordable. Perhaps there are monopolies or price fixing companies in the UK that sell these things. I couldn't care less. Yes, I was insinuating that a free education is not a help. No I'm not a doctor, MD or otherwise. I created this alias when I was 12. When I was in graduate school, I decided to leave with a MS and not pursue my Ph.D, as I'd prefer not to be associated with the kind of people that end up with PhDs. I don't know what you mean about not objecting to insurance. I don't buy insurance I don't need. Why would a 70 yr. old widow have to pay for public school? Why would a couple that cannot have children have to pay for public school? Why would registered sex offenders have to pay for public school?

Wot? That article doesn't slant them as racist. It says they're totalitarian. I'll agree that the article wasn't well written, but it was comparing two objectionable things, namely Iran and the KKK. Not two racist things. As a "right winger", I've *never* heard Iran called anti-semetic or racist. I'd not even heard it second hand until you brought it up.

Yes, I read it. So I ask again,

While two sigs may be comparable to one alien tech, your original complaint was that alien techs are overpowered.

No, that's the ideal relationship. The real relationship is companies charge the worst service they can for the highest price affordable because that is what maximises profit. Most customers don't know what their health insurance really includes, and most just respond to whatever special offer is being pumped on the advertisements. You may tell me that they will lose their customers, but the truth is, the customers don't know what they're getting when they sign up, and none of the other companies are any better since they all want to make profit. As long as the customers are merely satisfied 90% of the time, then it doesn't matter if 10% of the time they find that they aren't covered for something they actually need, just like it doesn't matter if 10% of the population can't even afford it in the first place. It's more profitable to charge 90% of the population more money, and give them crap service. You seem fixated on health insurance, which I've already said on multiple occasions is not a free market. You criticizing it over and over just emphasizes how messed up the regulations are. Tell me about how companies in other markets are screwing the customer, and I might pay attention (I might not though, you're getting pretty boring). Honest people can't make an honest living in regulated markets. That means you'll only get evil, depraved companies in those markets. The solution is not to put more regulation on them. How many times have you been screwed by your local pizza place? How many times have you been cheated by your grocery store? Oh, I've had problems with companies a few times, but more often than not, that company goes out of business shortly afterwards. I wish I could say the same for the DMV. So I shouldn't be legally allowed to feed my family if I start a school? Yes, I can see how you would get a great educational system out of that. Because we all know how many great people have come out of 's free educational system. Were you a byproduct of a free system, by chance? For public vs. private schools, all I'm asking for is to pay for one or the other, instead of one or both. Is that too much to ask?

What, you want him to be nice to the KKK? Taking offense to the KKK makes one a crack-pot?

It's an interesting thought, but isn't feasible any time soon because it'll require a complete overhaul of all the sigs and alien techs. Sigs are very difficult to balance when you can have only one; balancing it for two would be even more so.

Sorry, I missed your post in the multi-post confusion. That's what scholarships are for. I came from a lower class family, and I went to college on a scholarship. Seems to me like you're focusing on police, which was one of the few services I said might not be able to be privatized. But just because you and I aren't clever enough to figure out a private police system doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm sure google and 15 minutes on a libertarian site will give you plenty of ideas how it might work. I haven't bothered because police would be the very very last service to become privatized. That money has to come from somewhere. Is it ethical to steal that money from your neighbors to fix it? Social work? Isn't that done by volunteers? Unemployment can be done by charities and families. Snow plowing is done by the owner of the road. Ditto for street cleaning. Parks and rec can be easily privatized. I don't use those services often, and I'm happy to pay when I do. Prison is one of those unfortunate things that the government has to do, along with the legal system. The closest you could get to private would be a system where prisons bid for contracts (this wouldn't necessarily be the best way), but the authority has to originate from the republic, since you're denying people rights. Again, this would be one of the last things on the road to privatization. More than likely, the money for the fire dept would be paid alongside homeowners insurance If you're not paying for the road, you'd be denied access to the road, since it would be private property. I would actually guarantee (not just almost, like you) that you would pay less. How we focus on these instead: Social Security Administration Office of Personnel Management (what does this even do?) Department of Transportation Department of Labor (what does this even do?) Department of Education Housing and Urban Development Department of Energy International Assistance Programs Department of the Interior Department of Commerce National Science Foundation Corps of Engineers Department of Agriculture

Yes, but people could access that information whether it's directly connected to the biller or connected through a proxy. That's why only trusted hosts are allowed to connect to the biller.

Find me a health insurance plan that can't drop me if I lose my job or raise my rates if I become sick. Health insurance isn't a free market. It's regulated into insanity. The idea isn't that people would go to one hospital over another, they'd become more like Walmart and Target: they're pretty much the same for all things, and you go to whichever is convenient. In an emergency, even more so. Also, people already avoid toll roads when they can, and go around places they know has bad traffic. I don't see how privatization is worse (and I see lots of ways that it's better). Lets be honest, the "but then people might have to think" argument is pretty much the worst counter argument, ever.

You originally brought up militias, not me. I defended them when you said they were inherently a problem. I never said they were an adequate solution to policing (they may be, I haven't given it any thought since it's irrelevant). Yes, price fixing is hard to prove, that's why barriers to entry should be minimized, so that it's not an issue. Regulation causes problems. End of story. Everything is about money, including companies and governments. Just because you don't want it to be about money doesn't change anything. At least companies admit their motivating factor. Most companies make money by providing the best service/money that they can, and making sure their customers keep coming back. That's a much healthier relationship than taxer-taxee. I'm confused... you think teachers and doctors shouldn't make money? Or you think that practices and schools shouldn't make money? Everyone should be forced to live with the worst health/education possible, even if they can afford better? My parents managed to pay for my sister and I to go to private school by sacrificing in other areas. You'd take that right away from people? How dare you? Yes, they get billed. Personal bankruptcy is always an option (better to have credit problems than be dead, right?). There's also that charity thing I talked about earlier. If they're illegally in the country, then they get deported when they're healthy enough. How many companies are represented at your local grocery store? Does your head explode when you go shopping? I think not. Adding a handful of companies to provide the services the government currently provides isn't going to change anything mentally. People already have to choose home insurance companies, car insurance companies, health insurance companies, television providers, telephone providers, electricity providers, fuel providers, internet providers, security monitoring. Some people have to find companies to maintain their lawns, and to plow their driveways. Why is adding trash pickup going to be an issue? There are millions of companies in the country, and yet these problems you describe do not exist with them. What is different about these particular services? The one sure thing about the private sector is that they'll come up with better solutions than politicians. I'm sure companies could come up with a pricing and payment system for highways that made consumers happy.

The SSCouncil has no more access to the client internals than anyone else. So talking about what parts to release would be an exercise in futility.

I said government was needed, not that taxes are needed. I reject your assertion that healthcare is a right. I'm not saying that hospitals should turn away people who can't pay, since that's not the same thing. Also, your implication that companies won't lower their prices below a certain point is simply untrue. I think you're confusing profit/sale for profit. Also, collusion to fix prices is illegal in the US (as it should be). It's usually unnecessary to enforce in a market without barriers to entry, though, as new companies will start up to compete with the price-fixers. You're mistaking public militias for bounty hunters. The Sicilian mafia (the only one whos history I know anything about) didn't start from a public militia. I'd love to see some counter examples. Please, quote me. The discussion isn't going anywhere else, since you're clearly ignorant of basic economics. I said the green house gas effect doesn't seem to exist in the Earth's atmosphere, because a ~40% increase in C02 hasn't had correlation with global temperature (the fundamental tenant of global warming). I do believe that the greenhouse effect exists in greenhouses. I also said that comparing Earth to Venus is fallacious. I said that the proximity to the Sun had more to do with the temperature than the atmosphere. I didn't say the atmosphere was insignificant. I said the Sun was more important. If you put Venus at one AU from the Sun, it would have a significantly lower average temperature.

Releasing the physics part of the code would help the community, but don't release the security parts.

Polix, maybe no one knows what you're doing because you don't actually say. You wrote a 6 paragraph post with only vague allusions to "we", "this project" "idea/plan". What project? Who is we? If you can't say, then don't write confusing posts. If you can say, then say. Most of your other recent posts have been the same way. Personally, I don't care, but you can't be surprised when people "think you're not working on anything".