Yes. What every state requires differs, and is controlled by the state legislature. It is also a function of the state, not the federal government. Read the Constitution sometime. That which is not enumerated herein is retained by the states. Where do you see "auto insurance" as part of the Constitution? Oh, right, it's Interstate Commerce.
You've confused your own point in your anti-gov't frothing. We've all ready established that auto insurance is currently mandated by every state and not the federal gov't. If you meant health insurance then it would be covered under the Wellness Clause not Interstate Commerce.
It is not required to cover you. It is required to cover the other guy. You are free to not have coverage for your vehicle or yourself. So yes, it does matter.
The reality is that both you and the other guy are mandated to buy insurance. What you are buying insurance for is semantics. Semantically you're buying coverage for everyone else, and everyone else is buying coverage for you. In that way, it is more socialist that health insurance.
Really? You're all for the government "saving you money" by taking more and more of it away from you, because it is "the long run"? Having everyone pay more for health insurance saves me money in the long run when I have to find a black-market doctor to provide a service for cash because the service I need has been rationed out of existance to "save me money", or the providers have left the system because we were saving too much money for them to be able to make a living at it legally? How nice. Thanks so much.
Come now, do you really believe that? Medical care is all ready heavily regulated by the gov't and black market medical service isn't a booming enterprise. Your logic is specious and makes incredible speculative bounds that are not based in reality.
The reality is that healthcare costs have been rising dramatically and the only ways to control costs is for gov't intervention in some form or another. I would prefer a single payer system like the rest of the industrialized world, but such proposals are political suicide here.
Does it matter that it's state or federal if every state requires it? Does it matter that it's required for you and "the other guy" when it's still required for both of you?
They both still cost you money to maintain and they're both supposed to save you money in the long run.
Absolutely. TFA is just a thinly veiled platform for older generations to complain about younger generations. I don't have the "common sense" of 150 years ago in order to buy a proper ox and wagon, find food and water for myself and the animals, or hunt and dress game. Similarly a person from 150 years ago wouldn't have the "common sense" to google for the answers to their questions about Abraham Lincoln.
"Common sense" varies from time and society, and both can change rather quickly.
Except they didn't. They posted company emails to show the incompetence of the CEO and claimed credit for it. They didn't steal credit card, address, or other personally identifiable information and then denied it.
I think your snark is a bit misplaced. Libertarianism depends on altruism to work. The ability of individuals to apply their money towards the causes they feel are most appropriate is a cornerstone of effective freedom. In theory, there is nothing about altruism that is incompatible with Libertarianism.
In reality, the ones who acquire the most wealth are inclined not to give "altruistically" due to the cutthroat nature and feelings of entitlement required to rise to the top, and are more inclined to spend their money for political gain. However, this is not necessarily a common trait of Libertarians, just a flaw in modeling reality.
Uh Oh, it looks like legal action has been taken concerning this case already.
To Apple IncSTOP
It has come to my attention that you are infringing on my patent for the autotelegraph deviceSTOP
Prepare to relinquish all patent claims concerning the iPad device to my estate for verificationSTOP
Actually it wasn't roads that made them useful. The Inca and Maya had roads; they had empires. What they didn't have was animals to draw the carts. What good is a carriage or chariot without a horse, a cart without a donkey, or a wagon without an ox? The first bicycle wasn't invented until the 1800's.
Better: "I have $100,000 to spend. If I put it into research, there is a 99% chance I'll lose the lot, and a 1% chance I'll make millions off it. If I invest it in conventional bonds and such, I'll end up with maybe $200,000. Much as I like millions, I just can't risk spending on something so unlikely to pay off."
"I can spend my money on a risky, but long-term productive goal or I can put it in the free money machine which produces 'liquidity'". You proved his point exactly.
Not defending censorship per se, but that is a flawed solution as well. Easily repeatable and alarmist rumors are easier to spread than complicated and nuanced facts. It's a battle of asymmetrical information.
Why is it going to fall over this way? Because the party that's supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, including the Republican co-opted Tea-Party, in this country nickels and dimes small fry programs while actually adding to the deficit. They cut funding to the IRS which makes a return on that investment by finding tax cheats. They cut funding for early start and school lunch programs which make for more successful and productive citizens later in life. They then turn around with that "saved" money and continue to fund more money than any "socialist pork" program on defense contractors and wars to maintain the American Empire. And for good measure give it back in tax cuts to pay homage to trickle down economics which has never worked to solidify their power base.
You make it sound so drastic, but let's bring the tone down a little. He's the head of a clinical department and tech inclined enough to pick an appropriate tool and deploy it. Of course IT needs to audit this thing, but it's not exactly "rouge hardware".
Whether or not he should give out a login depends on whether he can get a refund for this and make it official hospital property. If not he should probably run it from home and not on the network anyway.
I wish I could mod this up to +10; this is standard practice for shilling. Choose a target. Pick a claim made. Reductio Ad Absurdum the claim. Laugh at the ridiculous "stupid expert" or outrage at the "bias-blinded expert". Bonus points for:
- Choosing a claim made 15-20 years ago. Old enough to likely not be 100% accurate, but not so long ago that people will notice.
- Associating the claim with some disliked political organization.
- Implying a cover-up of some type.
At least that's what it seems like as my emails about the leak came with a bunch of Automotive Insurance emails despite the fact I no longer own a car.
Cutting defense spending will help in the short term, but will do nothing to prevent our long term budget problems.
We can't prevent our budget problems; we have budget problems, and we're talking about how we can cut spending. There's no reason not to go after the largest least reformed area of spending other than pure stubbornness. Our Empire costs more than we can afford.
Regardless of your priorities, your numbers are wrong. Unless you like to pretend nuclear weapon maintenance, Homeland Security, and veterans' affairs, among others, aren't a part of defense spending:
895B Military/National Security Discretionary
730B Social Security
580B Income Security/Dept of labor
520B Non-Military/Security Discretionary
491B Medicare
297B Medicaid
Defense is the elephant in the room. Reforming all the other programs is noble, but Social Security had a surplus not so long ago and many welfare programs were reformed in the 1990's. The fat to trim is in defense.
Disproving things like predictions is easy, people do that all the time. Disproving unobservable things is impossible. That is why science is held apart from religious faith.
So - can you reproduce the Big Bang and verify that is indeed how the universe was created? Can you reproduce evolution to the point of speciation in a laboratory?
How far are you going to move those goal posts? Of course we can't recreate the Big Bang; I can't re-eat that ice cream cone I just ate either. Not being able to recreate the big bang doesn't invalidate the million experiments that have supported or disproved predictions about it.
The point I'm making here is that you're always starting with an assumption. If you're a creationist, you assume that the revealed knowledge from the bible is correct, the earth must be 6000 years old, and therefore scientific methodology that indicates it's much older must be incorrect. If you believe in scientific methodology, which tells you the earth must be older than 6000 years, then you have to assume the revealed knowledge is incorrect.
But in either case, neither party can *prove* the reality of their assertion. Either you have to start with faith in revealed knowledge, or a faith in the scientific method.
That is a rather solipsistic point. You've reduced the argument to to point of absurdity. You can only "believe" what your senses are reporting to your brain are "true", but that is an important difference between science and religious faith. Religious faith is the "truth" regardless of what is observed, even if we are all brains in a jar. Science has a firm basis in what we perceive as reality.
Your argument can easily be extended to the concept that there are no natural rights at all.
This sentence is unfortunately true. Without law enforced by some type of societal gov't, whether Washington D.C. or a group of tribal elders, there is nothing in nature that prevents one man from taking advantage of another by greater force.
The state owns you from the moment you are born (or conceived even) and that any rights and freedoms you have are a charitable concession made by the state so that you may be more productive.
This, however does not follow are all. To be a part of society does not mean you must be "owned by the state" in everything you do. The philosophy of a pure socialism may subscribe to this, but all western democracies make clear that the role of gov't is peoples' live is part of a contract made with the gov't in question.
This is a fallacy. The collective state consists of individuals, and the rules are established because individuals recognize each other's natural rights.
It's because the creator has a natural right to his creation that we have established copyright.
The part about it being for the common good is just some twaddle that had to be added to sell the idea to liberals, collectivists and other good for nothings.
Well, it depends on where you live. In the U.S. copyright is not listed as a natural right, but a conditional one. From the constitution
Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Slashdot Mirror
I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm trying it out.
Streisand Effect is go.
Yes. What every state requires differs, and is controlled by the state legislature. It is also a function of the state, not the federal government. Read the Constitution sometime. That which is not enumerated herein is retained by the states. Where do you see "auto insurance" as part of the Constitution? Oh, right, it's Interstate Commerce.
You've confused your own point in your anti-gov't frothing. We've all ready established that auto insurance is currently mandated by every state and not the federal gov't. If you meant health insurance then it would be covered under the Wellness Clause not Interstate Commerce.
It is not required to cover you. It is required to cover the other guy. You are free to not have coverage for your vehicle or yourself. So yes, it does matter.
The reality is that both you and the other guy are mandated to buy insurance. What you are buying insurance for is semantics. Semantically you're buying coverage for everyone else, and everyone else is buying coverage for you. In that way, it is more socialist that health insurance.
Really? You're all for the government "saving you money" by taking more and more of it away from you, because it is "the long run"? Having everyone pay more for health insurance saves me money in the long run when I have to find a black-market doctor to provide a service for cash because the service I need has been rationed out of existance to "save me money", or the providers have left the system because we were saving too much money for them to be able to make a living at it legally? How nice. Thanks so much.
Come now, do you really believe that? Medical care is all ready heavily regulated by the gov't and black market medical service isn't a booming enterprise. Your logic is specious and makes incredible speculative bounds that are not based in reality.
The reality is that healthcare costs have been rising dramatically and the only ways to control costs is for gov't intervention in some form or another. I would prefer a single payer system like the rest of the industrialized world, but such proposals are political suicide here.
Does it matter that it's state or federal if every state requires it? Does it matter that it's required for you and "the other guy" when it's still required for both of you?
They both still cost you money to maintain and they're both supposed to save you money in the long run.
Ugh, I can't believe I had to get through half of the comments to read this. Successful troll is successful.
Absolutely. TFA is just a thinly veiled platform for older generations to complain about younger generations. I don't have the "common sense" of 150 years ago in order to buy a proper ox and wagon, find food and water for myself and the animals, or hunt and dress game. Similarly a person from 150 years ago wouldn't have the "common sense" to google for the answers to their questions about Abraham Lincoln.
"Common sense" varies from time and society, and both can change rather quickly.
Except they didn't. They posted company emails to show the incompetence of the CEO and claimed credit for it. They didn't steal credit card, address, or other personally identifiable information and then denied it.
I think your snark is a bit misplaced. Libertarianism depends on altruism to work. The ability of individuals to apply their money towards the causes they feel are most appropriate is a cornerstone of effective freedom. In theory, there is nothing about altruism that is incompatible with Libertarianism.
In reality, the ones who acquire the most wealth are inclined not to give "altruistically" due to the cutthroat nature and feelings of entitlement required to rise to the top, and are more inclined to spend their money for political gain. However, this is not necessarily a common trait of Libertarians, just a flaw in modeling reality.
Actually I'd say that's better. At least you'd be able to dispute the information.
Uh Oh, it looks like legal action has been taken concerning this case already.
To Apple IncSTOP
It has come to my attention that you are infringing on my patent for the autotelegraph deviceSTOP
Prepare to relinquish all patent claims concerning the iPad device to my estate for verificationSTOP
Sent from my iAutotelegraph deviceFULLSTOP
Actually it wasn't roads that made them useful. The Inca and Maya had roads; they had empires. What they didn't have was animals to draw the carts. What good is a carriage or chariot without a horse, a cart without a donkey, or a wagon without an ox? The first bicycle wasn't invented until the 1800's.
Better: "I have $100,000 to spend. If I put it into research, there is a 99% chance I'll lose the lot, and a 1% chance I'll make millions off it. If I invest it in conventional bonds and such, I'll end up with maybe $200,000. Much as I like millions, I just can't risk spending on something so unlikely to pay off."
"I can spend my money on a risky, but long-term productive goal or I can put it in the free money machine which produces 'liquidity'". You proved his point exactly.
Not defending censorship per se, but that is a flawed solution as well. Easily repeatable and alarmist rumors are easier to spread than complicated and nuanced facts. It's a battle of asymmetrical information.
Why is it going to fall over this way? Because the party that's supposed to be for fiscal responsibility, including the Republican co-opted Tea-Party, in this country nickels and dimes small fry programs while actually adding to the deficit. They cut funding to the IRS which makes a return on that investment by finding tax cheats. They cut funding for early start and school lunch programs which make for more successful and productive citizens later in life. They then turn around with that "saved" money and continue to fund more money than any "socialist pork" program on defense contractors and wars to maintain the American Empire. And for good measure give it back in tax cuts to pay homage to trickle down economics which has never worked to solidify their power base.
You realize he is the Father of the World-Wide Web, right?
He doesn't because the modifier "the creator of the web" comes after the name "Tim Berners-Lee".
You make it sound so drastic, but let's bring the tone down a little. He's the head of a clinical department and tech inclined enough to pick an appropriate tool and deploy it. Of course IT needs to audit this thing, but it's not exactly "rouge hardware".
Whether or not he should give out a login depends on whether he can get a refund for this and make it official hospital property. If not he should probably run it from home and not on the network anyway.
I wish I could mod this up to +10; this is standard practice for shilling. Choose a target. Pick a claim made. Reductio Ad Absurdum the claim. Laugh at the ridiculous "stupid expert" or outrage at the "bias-blinded expert". Bonus points for:
- Choosing a claim made 15-20 years ago. Old enough to likely not be 100% accurate, but not so long ago that people will notice.
- Associating the claim with some disliked political organization.
- Implying a cover-up of some type.
after PAX East. (Portal 2 was playable there, but I didn't even bother trying.)
No it wasn't, they just showed a video and you got an Aperture Science Salt Asbestos Curtain(t-shirt).
Ugh. GP comment is willfully ignorant, but lumping Keynesian economics with communism is just as willfully ignorant.
At least that's what it seems like as my emails about the leak came with a bunch of Automotive Insurance emails despite the fact I no longer own a car.
Cutting defense spending will help in the short term, but will do nothing to prevent our long term budget problems.
We can't prevent our budget problems; we have budget problems, and we're talking about how we can cut spending. There's no reason not to go after the largest least reformed area of spending other than pure stubbornness. Our Empire costs more than we can afford.
Regardless of your priorities, your numbers are wrong. Unless you like to pretend nuclear weapon maintenance, Homeland Security, and veterans' affairs, among others, aren't a part of defense spending:
895B Military/National Security Discretionary
730B Social Security
580B Income Security/Dept of labor
520B Non-Military/Security Discretionary
491B Medicare
297B Medicaid
Defense is the elephant in the room. Reforming all the other programs is noble, but Social Security had a surplus not so long ago and many welfare programs were reformed in the 1990's. The fat to trim is in defense.
Well except for certain mass extinctions which is of a particular concern now.
Disproving things like predictions is easy, people do that all the time. Disproving unobservable things is impossible. That is why science is held apart from religious faith.
So - can you reproduce the Big Bang and verify that is indeed how the universe was created? Can you reproduce evolution to the point of speciation in a laboratory?
How far are you going to move those goal posts? Of course we can't recreate the Big Bang; I can't re-eat that ice cream cone I just ate either. Not being able to recreate the big bang doesn't invalidate the million experiments that have supported or disproved predictions about it.
The point I'm making here is that you're always starting with an assumption. If you're a creationist, you assume that the revealed knowledge from the bible is correct, the earth must be 6000 years old, and therefore scientific methodology that indicates it's much older must be incorrect. If you believe in scientific methodology, which tells you the earth must be older than 6000 years, then you have to assume the revealed knowledge is incorrect.
But in either case, neither party can *prove* the reality of their assertion. Either you have to start with faith in revealed knowledge, or a faith in the scientific method.
That is a rather solipsistic point. You've reduced the argument to to point of absurdity. You can only "believe" what your senses are reporting to your brain are "true", but that is an important difference between science and religious faith. Religious faith is the "truth" regardless of what is observed, even if we are all brains in a jar. Science has a firm basis in what we perceive as reality.
Your argument can easily be extended to the concept that there are no natural rights at all.
This sentence is unfortunately true. Without law enforced by some type of societal gov't, whether Washington D.C. or a group of tribal elders, there is nothing in nature that prevents one man from taking advantage of another by greater force.
The state owns you from the moment you are born (or conceived even) and that any rights and freedoms you have are a charitable concession made by the state so that you may be more productive.
This, however does not follow are all. To be a part of society does not mean you must be "owned by the state" in everything you do. The philosophy of a pure socialism may subscribe to this, but all western democracies make clear that the role of gov't is peoples' live is part of a contract made with the gov't in question.
This is a fallacy. The collective state consists of individuals, and the rules are established because individuals recognize each other's natural rights.
It's because the creator has a natural right to his creation that we have established copyright.
The part about it being for the common good is just some twaddle that had to be added to sell the idea to liberals, collectivists and other good for nothings.
Well, it depends on where you live. In the U.S. copyright is not listed as a natural right, but a conditional one. From the constitution
Congress shall have the Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;