Slashdot Mirror

"Year over year" means comparing the sales for the current month with the sales from the same month last year. The reason for doing this is that the industry generally follows cycles. Comparing sales in January to sales in December would be uninformative because of the huge boost to sales during the holiday season.

What the article says is that the difference, or rather the loss, between April 2009 sales and April 2010 sales was larger than any other since July 2009. July 2010 doesn't factor into the equation at all.

However, if Nokia wins, Apple has to reinvent mobile technology

Not really. Apple could just partner with Sprint or Virgin Mobile.

He should just tell her to get her tubes tide if he doesn't want one. We hear women whine about how it is major surgery, well, it isn't 1950 any more. These days it is a 30 minute procedure and the woman is back home the same day.

It amazes me how many people don't question the absurd statement that it is major surgery. The fact that women get breast implants through their belly buttons should have been tip off that they might be able to do the same with Tubal ligation.

There is nothing wrong with vasectomies if HE is done breeding and HE is comfortable with it, but if your friend is trying to convince him to have the procedure because SHE is done breeding WITH HIM, and she wants him changed in a way that she is unwilling to do herself, then she is just a bitch.

According to caloriecount.com, 3 pieces of Jolly Rancher candy (18.0g) contain 17.0g of carbohydrates, 11.0g of which is sugar, a total of 70 calories. This child had one piece, so that's about 23 calories and about 3.7g of sugar. So what the hell is the big deal? We're talking about maybe 1.5% of her total daily caloric intake here. If her mom or the school is feeding her some fruit juice she's getting more sugar than is in that candy, and when it comes right down to it fruit juice isn't much better than drinking a soda! Doesn't anybody know how to think for themselves anymore?

>First, trying to enact a vague law that blanket invalidates a specific set of already-granted patents would pretty obviously be declared unconstitutional (not that it would ever pass anyway).

It's not unconstitutional. The same constitution that provides for patents also provides for eminent domain, and government use of patents without a license has been held to be a taking under eminent domain. This may entail compensation, but it's not unconstitutional.

Thanks for the detailed reply, tambo. You are quite right that I am not a lawyer and thus make simple, repeated mistakes in this area. You pointed out a confusing point I had and the more I stew on it, the more I'm convincing myself that this is a complete dead end. It's starting to feel like a Game Theory model is going to have to be built in order to make any significant improvements to the system.

I really like your observation that the first standard established becomes the de facto standard as it would be the only one with any real patent protection according to my plan. The process of even trying to develop the next generation technology would have to stand on the shoulders of the previous work, but since it wouldn't be part of a standard yet, the developers could be easily sued.

As for submarine patents, thanks for calling me out on that. It might have helped if I had run a Google on it before I posted that phrase.

Can you conceive of a plan, then, by which RAND can force non-members to at least identify their patents within a short, finite time span or forfeit most forms of redress? Ideally, a patent search would find relevant conflicts, but I'm starting to get the idea that more and more generic, broad patents are being issued with too much being left to interpretation.

I guess what I kind of want is patent owners to be required to be more involved in nearby issues like the involvement required for trademarks. I'm looking to change the balance of things since the issuing rules don't appear to be up for change any time soon in the U.S. And that's what everybody on Slashdot complains about the most.

Thanks again!

I've said something along the same lines in posts on this subject over the past few weeks:

The government should seize the H.264 patents via eminent domain or other legal structure, compensate the parties involved with a one-time payment, and make the patents freely available for all.

Governmental use of a patented invention is viewed as an eminent domain taking of a license under the patent and not as a tort.

The reasoning is the same as for seizure of real property which stands in the way of a public purpose (road, fort, etc.).

The public purpose for freely shareable audio/video seems quite clear, especially if H.264 is going to be mandated (even indirectly) through various government decrees, regulations, etc., or even if the government adopts an existing industry standard.

Nonsense. Horse, meet donkey. Go, mule, go!

Almost. Mule's are sterile and thus are not technically viable offspring.

Most mules are sterile, but the offsprings' sterility is completely beside the original point. The original poster claimed that species couldn't inter-breed, and the mule is just too darned stubborn to admit is shouldn't exist :-)

According to that definition, modern domestic turkeys shouldn't be classified as a species, since they're so big they can't even reproduce with each other without human intervention. So, if you're going to say that if it can't reproduce, it's not a species, then domestic turkeys aren't any more a life form than a flu virus is. They both need their human host.

You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

The state has laws regarding marriage or civil unions because there are rights accorded to spouses under the law, and have been since the country was founded. There are a huge number of these rights, far more than I had even imagined. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between people and automatically grants these rights, only some of which can be gotten through other means, and at much greater legal expense.

So, these special rights accorded to married couples by the state would either need to be done away with (which won't happen), or provided for through some other mechanism. Once you establish that other mechanism, then people will argue about whether gay couples should be allowed to avail themselves of that mechanism. As long as there are rights granted by the state for marriage or whatever form of union, there's really no non-religious reason why gay people should be prevented from forming such a union.

You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.

MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.

But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.

The state has laws regarding marriage or civil unions because there are rights accorded to spouses under the law, and have been since the country was founded. There are a huge number of these rights, far more than I had even imagined. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between people and automatically grants these rights, only some of which can be gotten through other means, and at much greater legal expense.

So, these special rights accorded to married couples by the state would either need to be done away with (which won't happen), or provided for through some other mechanism. Once you establish that other mechanism, then people will argue about whether gay couples should be allowed to avail themselves of that mechanism. As long as there are rights granted by the state for marriage or whatever form of union, there's really no non-religious reason why gay people should be prevented from forming such a union.

Range from Wifi router = 150ft indoors, 300ft outdoors
Range from wired router = 500 meters (1,640 ft, 10base5 coax) or 185 meters (607 ft, 10base2 coax).

Yes... Buddhism has a lower incidence of sexual abuse because if monks suddenly feel the urge to be sexually active, they are allowed to leave the monastery, marry, have kids, and come back later when their child-rearing responsibilities are finished.

Now, bring on the pedophile priest jokes!

Excellent! NASA can gets new corporate sponsors as Marlboro redefines itself as the 'Red cigarette on the Red Planet' and a generation of School Kids can be charmed by Joe Camel's new adventures on mars. http://scifi.about.com/b/2010/01/04/avatar-is-smoking-in-more-ways-than-one.htm

No, that's just what they want you to believe.

He's really just a shaved monkey. ^1

[1] http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmonkey3.htm
[Citation provided]

Discriminate?

Yes, they discriminate against people based upon religion and sexual orientation. I have no problem with a private organization doing either, but they should not be eligible for government funding or freebies like they have been getting.

Government funding? I don't think so.

Here is a list of a few dozen instances where they've lost government aid in various court cases. Mostly it was a case of being allowed to use public facilities free of charge. It includes the cities of Philadelphia and Berkley and the states of Illinois and Oregon in the US. There are still many city and state governments providing assistance to the BSA despite it being illegal favoritism. Sadly too many people in the US are in favor of discrimination against gays and non-christians so politicians are unwilling to do anything about it.

Go read the 14th Amendment. Count the times it says 'citizens'. Then SLAP YOURSELF IN THE GODDAMN FACE THAT NUMBER OF TIMES. Illegal aliens are NOT citizens. The 14th Amendment EXPLICITLY does not apply to them. That is the LAW.

It's always nice that you don't have to do your own googling. But you could at least go back to the said ammendment and read how it separates "citizens" from "persons" and gives its subjects rights differentially, according to whether they are "person" or "citizen".

But of course, you are too busy slapping people around to do your own reading, so here it goes :)

14.1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The US Code cannot validate the Constitution but fill in the gaps that it leaves open. Title 8 is supposed to do just that. The way it fills that gap is open to (and should be) questioned.

After all, no law is set in stone and no law is "perfect." Laws need to be continuously questioned to tease out the ways in which they institutionalize ideologies of domination.

It seems quite clear to me that Title 8, in its entirety, from how it names us as "alien" (non-human), to how it deploys enforcement agencies onto "aliens" simply because they are "aliens" (eg Title 8, 1304) not only institutionalizes racism but also transposes many of the basic tenets of racist thought onto immigrants.

> The Navy has Admirals, not Generals.

Hehe, you must be right I guess.

To my defense, that Marines/Navy thing in the US has always confused a bit I guess.

Marine definition:
  1.
a. A soldier serving on a ship or at a naval installation.
b. Marine A member of the U.S. Marine Corps.

And guess what, the US Marine Corps has generals:

"In the U.S. Marine Corps, general is the highest rank of commissioned officer. "

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/a/usmcgen.htm

You know how the Catholic church has been on a kick recently on how atheists were supposedly responsible for all the evils of the 20th century, foremost Nazi Germany.

Well, in the past, they could get away with this. In fact, I used to believe this myself. These days, however, within minutes, you can find out that it's a lie. Here are some quotes from prominent Nazis and prominent Catholics at the time:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.01.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm

(The sources of these quotes are given, so you can track them down yourself.)

Here is a quote from Michael von Faulhaber about Hitler, the Cardinal who ordained Ratzinger:

What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing. ...May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people.

Here's another one of Faulhaber's quotes:

In this way the Catholics will profess again their loyalty to people and Fatherland and their agreement with the farsighted and forceful efforts of the Führer to spare the German people the terror of war and Bolshevism, to secure public order and create work for the unemployed.

Pretty embarrassing for the Pope (Faulhaber ordained Ratzinger) and the Vatican. If you read the quotes from Catholic officials in the 1930's, they are almost identical to the bullshit about "Christian values", "family values", and "national pride" that you hear today. If it was good enough for the Nazis... it isn't good enough for us.

Is there any wonder the Vatican hates the Internet? They've lost their ability to manipulate how people perceive them and what people know about them.

You know how the Catholic church has been on a kick recently on how atheists were supposedly responsible for all the evils of the 20th century, foremost Nazi Germany.

Well, in the past, they could get away with this. In fact, I used to believe this myself. These days, however, within minutes, you can find out that it's a lie. Here are some quotes from prominent Nazis and prominent Catholics at the time:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.01.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm

(The sources of these quotes are given, so you can track them down yourself.)

Here is a quote from Michael von Faulhaber about Hitler, the Cardinal who ordained Ratzinger:

What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing. ...May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people.

Here's another one of Faulhaber's quotes:

In this way the Catholics will profess again their loyalty to people and Fatherland and their agreement with the farsighted and forceful efforts of the Führer to spare the German people the terror of war and Bolshevism, to secure public order and create work for the unemployed.

Pretty embarrassing for the Pope (Faulhaber ordained Ratzinger) and the Vatican. If you read the quotes from Catholic officials in the 1930's, they are almost identical to the bullshit about "Christian values", "family values", and "national pride" that you hear today. If it was good enough for the Nazis... it isn't good enough for us.

Is there any wonder the Vatican hates the Internet? They've lost their ability to manipulate how people perceive them and what people know about them.

You know how the Catholic church has been on a kick recently on how atheists were supposedly responsible for all the evils of the 20th century, foremost Nazi Germany.

Well, in the past, they could get away with this. In fact, I used to believe this myself. These days, however, within minutes, you can find out that it's a lie. Here are some quotes from prominent Nazis and prominent Catholics at the time:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.01.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm

(The sources of these quotes are given, so you can track them down yourself.)

Here is a quote from Michael von Faulhaber about Hitler, the Cardinal who ordained Ratzinger:

What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing. ...May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people.

Here's another one of Faulhaber's quotes:

In this way the Catholics will profess again their loyalty to people and Fatherland and their agreement with the farsighted and forceful efforts of the Führer to spare the German people the terror of war and Bolshevism, to secure public order and create work for the unemployed.

Pretty embarrassing for the Pope (Faulhaber ordained Ratzinger) and the Vatican. If you read the quotes from Catholic officials in the 1930's, they are almost identical to the bullshit about "Christian values", "family values", and "national pride" that you hear today. If it was good enough for the Nazis... it isn't good enough for us.

Is there any wonder the Vatican hates the Internet? They've lost their ability to manipulate how people perceive them and what people know about them.

You know how the Catholic church has been on a kick recently on how atheists were supposedly responsible for all the evils of the 20th century, foremost Nazi Germany.

Well, in the past, they could get away with this. In fact, I used to believe this myself. These days, however, within minutes, you can find out that it's a lie. Here are some quotes from prominent Nazis and prominent Catholics at the time:

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.01.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerChristian.htm

(The sources of these quotes are given, so you can track them down yourself.)

Here is a quote from Michael von Faulhaber about Hitler, the Cardinal who ordained Ratzinger:

What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing. ...May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people.

Here's another one of Faulhaber's quotes:

In this way the Catholics will profess again their loyalty to people and Fatherland and their agreement with the farsighted and forceful efforts of the Führer to spare the German people the terror of war and Bolshevism, to secure public order and create work for the unemployed.

Pretty embarrassing for the Pope (Faulhaber ordained Ratzinger) and the Vatican. If you read the quotes from Catholic officials in the 1930's, they are almost identical to the bullshit about "Christian values", "family values", and "national pride" that you hear today. If it was good enough for the Nazis... it isn't good enough for us.

Is there any wonder the Vatican hates the Internet? They've lost their ability to manipulate how people perceive them and what people know about them.

I hope they pay it in loose dimes (Ok, Ok, Ten Centavos pieces)...

They also have extensive experience with rocks.

King's Landing Historic Park had a treadmill like this that was powered by oxen or horses for running simple machines. So this isn't totally new.

- Peace

[citation needed]

AKA you're too lazy to look it up and educate yourself. Here you go you lazy bum. Now what do you think the chances are that none of those 599 additives enhances the addictiveness of a cigarette? Notice caffeine in there? Isn't that addictive?

Honestly, insightful?

From a quick google search on NASA inventions:

Ten NASA inventions you use every day

Top 15 NASA inventions

Polimide Foam

NASA Inventions benefiting our daily lives

Highlights from those links include kidney dialysis, CAT scans, various types of insulation, efficient water purification tech, cordless tools, modern designs of microchips, satellite tech (you know, it deleives a great deal of your communications....), scratch resistant lenses... And there's a *lot* more, a great deal of modern tech comes from NASA is one way or another.

Even if you have a problem with exploration and a search for knowledge and understanding of the universe, you have to admit the space program and its SCIENCE have yielded *massive* results on earth in technology. I'm also pretty sure there were luddites like you when the first ships were being built, the first submarines, the first plans, hell, the first time someone said "I'm going to wander 50 miles that way and see what's there".

So, which of the 3 are you?
http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventors/a/James_Gosling.htm

You need to bump that 20 years up a bit to be really wrong...

online videos: algebra + calculus
http://justmathtutoring.com/
http://www.mathtutor.ac.uk/
http://www.khanacademy.org/
http://www.graderocket.tv/index.php

Uni Maths Videos
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Mathematics/
http://press.princeton.edu/video/banner/
http://academicearth.org/subjects/mathematics
http://freescienceonline.blogspot.com/2009/01/calculus-video-lectures-bonus-basic.html
http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/ (requires iTunes download)

Resources from Universities
http://www.germanna.edu/tutor/helpful_handouts.asp?menuchoice=Helpful%20Handouts (wow)
http://mathforum.org/

Free online books:
http://www.jamesbrennan.org/algebra/systems/solution_set.htm
http://cnx.org/content/m18205/latest/?collection=col10624
http://www.jirka.org/diffyqs/ (Differential eqns)
http://www.purplemath.com/
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/

PowerPoints
http://www.online.math.uh.edu/HoustonACT/

Tutoring services
http://www.nutshellmath.com/

Collections of Links
http://math.about.com/od/mathhelpandtutorials/Math_Help_and_Tutorials_by_Subject_and_or_Topic.htm
http://pathstoknowledge.net/

Problems
http://projecteuler.net/

Some computer Resources
http://www.graphmatica.com/
http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/

ok, you're clearly retarded, so continuing this debate seems pointless, but i'll make one last, half assed attempt.

http://classiclit.about.com/od/atreegrows/fr/aafpr_treegrows.htm

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060736262/A_Tree_Grows_in_Brooklyn/index.aspx

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14891.A_Tree_Grows_in_Brooklyn

http://classicreads.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/a-tree-grows-in-brooklyn-schedule/

http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/tree-grows-in-brooklyn.html

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780060736262

http://www.librarything.com/work/1475

http://kimbofo.typepad.com/readingmatters/2005/11/a_tree_grows_in.html

And again, Betty Smith is not a 'classic' author, but one of the few books she wrote is a classic book. Can you really not understand that very simple concept, or are you just grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to not have to admit you're wrong?

Pancreatic cancer can indeed be smoking-related.

Cigarette smoke contains a huge range of nasty chemicals. Those chemicals aren't blocked from the rest of your body your lungs. They seep in through your lungs. Although the chemicals are most likely to cause lung cancer because that tissue is heavily exposed, the carcinogens are quite free to do damage to other tissues in your body.

http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/BasicCauses.php?area=ba

"Smoking doubles the risk of pancreatic cancer. Smoking is also associated with early age at diagnosis, and, very importantly, the risk of pancreatic cancer drops close to normal in people who quit smoking. Simply put, cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of pancreatic cancer. In fact, some scientists have estimated that one in four, or one in five cases of pancreatic cancer are caused by smoking cigarettes."

See : http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/cancerstats.htm for details about other types of cancer you are at increased risk of from smoking.

Almost any recipe book stand will do the job.

http://math.about.com/od/mathhelpandtutorials/Math_Help_and_Tutorials_by_Subject_and_or_Topic.htm

Check it out!

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/high_std_rates_abstinence_ed_link
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74005
http://gayteens.about.com/b/2009/11/17/rising-std-rates-linked-to-abstinence-only-education.htm
http://www.avert.org/abstinence.htm

Just a few links off the top google search results on the subject. While facts will certainly never really matter to people who feel so strongly in favor of religious indoctrination and against sex, it's certainly easy for the rest of us to see the obvious effects at work here. It's a lovely subject of discussion between fundamentalists and enlightened people, but for the sake of all adolescents who are just starting out on this whole sex thing, I'd rather see that relgious brainwashing stay out of sex education (or any form of education for that matter).

Given that Barack Obama is a spammer (see below), I don't object to his on-line presence being hacked. Maybe, it is illegal, but I wish the prosecution to be as lenient, as that of the certain Black Panthers was...

Yes, he is a spammer, because I am receiving e-mails from him — without ever asking to be subscribed, much less having gone through the double opt-in, the only responsible method of adding subscribers to a mailing list:

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:33:17 -0400
To: Mikhail xxxxx
From: Barack Obama
Reply-to: info@barackobama.com
Subject: Thank you, Mikhail
Message-ID:
...

More bullshit. The military doesn't care if you have bad-credit, even has a system for helping you manage debt. They will accept people with asthma provided they can still handle the physical training, and short-sighted only gets your disqualified if you are almost blind. Plenty of military personnel wear glasses and the military will often pay for corrective surgery if you want it.

Enlistment standards.

Bad credit: "Any recruit who's monthly consumer debts (not counting debts which can be deferred, such as student loans) exceeds 40 percent of his/her anticipated military pay is ineligible for enlistment."

Asthma: Disqualifying.

Short-sighted: Having eye surgery can disqualify you, actually. Also, being short-sighted can disqualify you, if your vision can't be corrected to within 20/40. Even if vision can be corrected, a wide variety of common eye problems can disqualify you, including night-blindness.

Someday you will learn that you can't take your limited experiences of the world and turn them into overly broad statements of fact about entire processes and organizations.

Hugs and kisses.

More bullshit. The military doesn't care if you have bad-credit, even has a system for helping you manage debt. They will accept people with asthma provided they can still handle the physical training, and short-sighted only gets your disqualified if you are almost blind. Plenty of military personnel wear glasses and the military will often pay for corrective surgery if you want it.

Enlistment standards.

Bad credit: "Any recruit who's monthly consumer debts (not counting debts which can be deferred, such as student loans) exceeds 40 percent of his/her anticipated military pay is ineligible for enlistment."

Asthma: Disqualifying.

Short-sighted: Having eye surgery can disqualify you, actually. Also, being short-sighted can disqualify you, if your vision can't be corrected to within 20/40. Even if vision can be corrected, a wide variety of common eye problems can disqualify you, including night-blindness.

Someday you will learn that you can't take your limited experiences of the world and turn them into overly broad statements of fact about entire processes and organizations.

Hugs and kisses.

More bullshit. The military doesn't care if you have bad-credit, even has a system for helping you manage debt. They will accept people with asthma provided they can still handle the physical training, and short-sighted only gets your disqualified if you are almost blind. Plenty of military personnel wear glasses and the military will often pay for corrective surgery if you want it.

Enlistment standards.

Bad credit: "Any recruit who's monthly consumer debts (not counting debts which can be deferred, such as student loans) exceeds 40 percent of his/her anticipated military pay is ineligible for enlistment."

Asthma: Disqualifying.

Short-sighted: Having eye surgery can disqualify you, actually. Also, being short-sighted can disqualify you, if your vision can't be corrected to within 20/40. Even if vision can be corrected, a wide variety of common eye problems can disqualify you, including night-blindness.

Someday you will learn that you can't take your limited experiences of the world and turn them into overly broad statements of fact about entire processes and organizations.

Hugs and kisses.

More bullshit. The military doesn't care if you have bad-credit, even has a system for helping you manage debt. They will accept people with asthma provided they can still handle the physical training, and short-sighted only gets your disqualified if you are almost blind. Plenty of military personnel wear glasses and the military will often pay for corrective surgery if you want it.

Enlistment standards.

Bad credit: "Any recruit who's monthly consumer debts (not counting debts which can be deferred, such as student loans) exceeds 40 percent of his/her anticipated military pay is ineligible for enlistment."

Asthma: Disqualifying.

Short-sighted: Having eye surgery can disqualify you, actually. Also, being short-sighted can disqualify you, if your vision can't be corrected to within 20/40. Even if vision can be corrected, a wide variety of common eye problems can disqualify you, including night-blindness.

Someday you will learn that you can't take your limited experiences of the world and turn them into overly broad statements of fact about entire processes and organizations.

Hugs and kisses.

Oh you mean like this comparison... where is shows easily 2-3 times as many java jobs as C# jobs??? And that doesn't even count the Groovy and scala positions :)

Companies have to act to protect their trademarks or they may lose them, it is known as genericization. Ironically, Google has this problem with people using the term "Googling"

http://inventors.about.com/b/2006/01/29/when-a-brand-name-becomes-generic-genericized-trademarks.htm

"The word Kleenex is now commonly used to describe any soft facial tissue. However, Kleenex is the trademarked name of the soft facial tissue manufactured and sold by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation."

As long as noone's being forced into it

The 'no one is being force' part requires a big discussion about the options women have in our society. I am not so sure that these women are not being forced into it. According to various studies, the pay gap between genders is getting worse (example: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm).

A version of this is an overpayment is made by mistake.

1 check is deposited
2 excess funds are sent by Western Union to scammer. This prevents the scammed from holding and returning the check. For more info on this look up "flash money" in google inregards to cashing checks. Many scams use this flash money to convince the victim they got the money.
3 small item is shipped to scammer or the sale is canceled.
4 check comes back as fake to the victims bank
5 victim lost the money sent and possibly the cell phone or other item sold.

More info is here. The important part is this; http://banking.about.com/od/securityandsafety/a/cashierscheckfd.htm

The trick of the cashier's check fraud is that the payee's bank credits the seller's account before the funds have actually arrived from the paying bank. Therefore, it looks like the funds have cleared and everything is OK.

When the funds don't arrive due to the fake check, the flash funds in your account that you wired off to the scammer is reversed in the victim's account. Now you get bounced check fees, possibly fake check fraud charges, overdraft fees, etc. Basicaly you're screwed.

Visit a scambaiting site where these scum are baited to see the scam in action, but knowing the check is fake. Baiters use the fake checks for wallpaper and as trophies of scammers they baited.

Google scambaiting. Not all results are safe for work.

It's like saying that your microwave oven is broken because a can of tomato soup sitting on the counter isn't getting hot. You have to open the can of soup and put it in the microwave, and then turn the microwave on, before you can expect the soup to get hot.

There's a big, huge, massive difference between them. You have to put the can in the oven, then watch it explode. Teens on the other hand have to agree to abstinence, which most will not. Even those who sign an abstinence pledge don't keep the pledge. Studies support this:
Final Nail in the Coffin
"In the most recent study, researchers compared teens who had taken the virginity pledge to those who had not taken a pledge. The researchers found results similar to the aforementioned studies.'

"First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge. "

Here are more:

• Many Teens Who Take 'Virginity Pledges' Substitute Other High-Risk Behavior for Intercourse, Study Says.
• The Problem With Virginity Pledges"
  "...The problem is that even when these sex ed programs are effective in encouraging teens to remain virginal, "effective" may only mean that the programs have convinced teenagers to avoid vaginal intercourse. But vaginal intercourse is not the only sexual activity that can be hazardous to a person's physical and emotional health; oral and anal sex may not lead to pregnancy, but they can spread sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, herpes, and HIV."
• Are virginity pledges effective?
  "Although they were once the sole province of religious organizations, many secular groups and schools now host events where students sign "virginity pledges" as a way to promote pre-marital abstinence. Today, virginity pledges are also part of most abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and programs. Research has found that under certain conditions these pledges may help some adolescents delay sexual intercourse. When they work, pledges help this select group of adolescents delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months--far short of marriage. However, the studies also found that those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. These teens are therefore more vulnerable to the risks of unprotected sexual activity such as unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among "virgins," male and female pledgers are six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged. And, the research has confirmed that, although some students who take pledges delay intercourse, ultimately they are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers. In fact, researchers found that the STD rates were higher in communities where a significant proportion (over 20%) of the young people had taken virginity pledges. Clearly, virginity pledges are not an effective strategy for keeping young people healthy."

There's plent

I could not disagree with you more. The vast majority of these people who "can't pay for insurance" still manage to pay for an iPod or a Cell Phone or a form of reliable transportation (read: new car in most cases 2).

First, An iPod costs a couple hundred dollars, once. A cell phone plan costs an average of $635.85 annually, though you can easily find low-cost plans for about half that.. Health insurance, for an average family, will cost you and/or your employer a whopping $13,375 annually (Sources: USA Today, about.com). So even if they gave up all the things you mention, they still don't have the cash to get decent health insurance.

Second, not everyone really needs health insurance. I've looked at my health care costs and my insurance, and at my age, even with a fairly significant chunk of medical bills late last year, my insurance still didn't pay for what it cost me and my employer. And that's for the cheapest tier of health insurance I can get through my employer. For younger people with no family history of cancer, health insurance is basically subsidizing other people's care. So for many people in that age range, it just doesn't make financial sense. Fortunately, my employer basically pays the entire cost. Were it not for that, I probably would have pocketed the money until at least age 30.

As for your assertion that individual funding cannot be solved at a governmental level, that's a big part of what this plan does---the government gives tax credits to people who buy insurance for themselves, thus effectively covering the cost of the insurance. If people don't take that health insurance, they don't get the credit. Unlike money that they earn from their employers, the credit can't be used to pay for anything else, eliminating the incentive to skip it. And that was my point.

Where consumers in the US have a wide range of drugs available to them European consumers are far more restricted in their choice. Although countries with nationalised health services believe that their healthcare systems prioritise the interest of citizens, HTA is in fact used as a precursor to supply-side restrictions on pricing and reimbursement.

Here are some other good articles:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/02/Comparative-Effectiveness-in-Health-Care-Reform-Lessons-from-Abroad#_ftn32
http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/health/funding-uk-healthcare/
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/hpcgSystems.pdf

"no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise"

I wouldn't call a $1 Billion profit a loss...

It's profitable NOW - hence UPS, FedEx, etc. It wasn't in 1789.

"no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise"

I wouldn't call a $1 Billion profit a loss...

The Patent expired. "

United States Patent No. 174,465 was issued to Alexander Graham Bell in 1876, and became recognized as the most valuable patent in history."

http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/ss/TelephonePatent.htm

Chavez is a dictator

Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).

Read more news (and history) then. Hitler and Mussolini were elected too, you know. Chavez has shut down opposition newspapers, thrown political opponents into jail, supported the leftist-cum-terrorist operations of FARC in Columbia, is best buds with the Castro brothers, etc. All of which adds up to me as dictator-like behavior. He first came to notice after a failed coup attempt in 1992 - and when he did come to power, became one of the leaders of the OPEC cartel, reducing production to boost oil prices.

See http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentsofsouthamerica/p/09HChavez.htm - a generally sympathetic view of him as a leftist reformer, but his dictatorial aspirations are clear.

Plus, he's just a lying SOS and enemy of the US, just on general principles (or lack thereof). Most recently, he accused US of being responsible for the Haiti earthquake ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html ) using some magical new weapon no one else has heard of. Evidence of the paranoid style and demonization of some "enemy" which is page one of the dictator's handbook.\p>

Yup. Secret clearences are run through the ENTNAC, which anybody can pass. TS and above are where they send a guy to speak in person to friends and family and run more extensive checks. I was only SECRET scum, so I easily got away with violating UCMJ Article 83. No sir, I never smoked marihuana in my life.

It's Article 125 enlistees should worry about. Fortunately, it's usually only invoked in high-profile cases and/or in conjunction of violation of articles like 120 or 134.