This is the problem. Not the actual amount paid out in legal fees, but the fact that our entire diagnostic system is influenced by the fear of litigation. Patients are over-tested and treated overly-conservatively, because doctors don't want blame and patients don't push back.
Here's my cure for the American healthcare system, by the way: The likely cost of any non-emergency procedure or test has to be given to the patient before it is performed. Right now, it's like pulling teeth to get even an estimate. I think this would immediately drop healthcare costs by a third.
I'm sure I'm not the only South African who read the first part of the headline and wondered briefly why/. was commenting on the the SA vs Samoa match in the rugby world cup tomorrow...
Maybe not, but I can assure you no American had any such thought. I'm not sure any American could have that thought.
Right now, it's far cheaper to buy bitcoins with cash than to pay the power cost to mine them. If you think bitcoins will be the currency of the future, go spend a few hundred dollars on them.
ESPN, for example, is watched by 10%-15% of subscribers in any market. Yet every last customer pays for it.
You're joking, right? You do realize that this is the US, and football season has started, right?
I think this is one of those cases where a non-sports fan finds it inconceivable that as many as X% people watch sports regularly, and a sports fan finds it inconceivable that as few as X% people watch sports regularly. Both sides are extrapolating from their own experience and social groups.
They can charge whatever they want. If they charge too much, they'll end up making less money. If they rip out the most expensive part of a $50 package, charge $50 +$25 for the combination, and make more money, then they'll be happy and stay that way. If it reduces sales, they'll be unhappy and change it back.
The determining factor is how unhappy customers are with the changes. If it's too high, they'll leave. If it's not too high, they'll continue buying the product. That's how the marketplace works.
I'd like to see some stats. How many men watch, say, at least one sporting event per week? I have no idea if that's 60% or 10%. I watch one per year, on a particularly busy year, but this isn't the sort of thing you can judge by anecdotal evidence.
Quoting another poster:
Libertarians are not anarchists, just like American liberals are not communists. Wanting less government does not mean wanting no government.
You've already been answered by someone in this thread. Somolia has no government, and no support of individual rights. That is very clearly not what libertarians advocate or desire, so it does not serve as a invalidation of libertarianism.
The next question is... will people in this thread stop using that invalid Somolia comparison? I bet I know the answer to that....
No, they don't mandate car insurance. ('They' refers to Federal government.)
States mandate it. That's entirely different. Many people who think that Obamacare is unconstitutional wouldn't have any legal objections to states implementing it.
It seems that the distinction between state and federal powers is misunderstood by many people. It's as significant a separation of powers as that between the Legislative/Executive/Judicial branches.
You think that clause in the preamble gives the federal government license to do anything it decides would benefit the general welfare of the US? Anything?
The draft? Educational and career choices? Wealth equalization? Imminent domain seizures? Omnipresent surveillance?
The clause is actually there to present the motive for creating a constitutional government. Later in the document the exact powers of the government are listed, and arbitrary powers to promote the welfare in any way the current administration wishes are very clearly NOT present.
deny to medical treatment to anyone not wearing a seat belt during a crash,
There's a difference between 'deny' and 'not give'. No libertarian would try to deny anybody healthcare. They would just object to forcing people to give healthcare against their will.
I think the critical distinction that people miss is the difference between federal and state law. There is no federal law mandating motorcycle helmets. There is no federal law mandating seatbelt use. They don't have that power. Those are state matters.
More critical than nearly any other issue, more important than healthcare, is that we have a government that respects the rule of law. The constitution must be followed, or amended using the proper procedures. Giving the federal government a power the constitution doesn't allow is extremely dangerous, no matter how good or beneficial that power might be.
The state does, not the federal government. Obamacare might have been constitutional if adapted and managed by the states, on a state-by-state basis. States (are supposed to) have much more power than the federal government in managing their own commerce.
In a practical sense, the user agent may be what you have to resort to. However, the ideal solution would be to query specifically for screen resolution, bandwidth, and so on. That way an app would work on all devices and browsers, even those not invented yet.
Does HTML5 have formal provisions for that sort of granular capability checking? I have been away from web development for a while.
The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.
That's a pretty damn general statement. Keep in mind that a big chunk of conservatives are highly libertarian, and probably support free speech more than anybody. It also ignores the highly intolerant portion of the left, who call for rules against certain types of 'hate' speech.
Be more specific with your criticisms.
There's a difference between deciding that your child shouldn't read a certain book and challenging it, which is essentially asking that no child should be allowed to read it.
But this list includes objections to required reading books. That IS simply asking that your child not be forced to read it. I'm completely against book censorship, but can imagine a circumstance where I would object to my child being required to read a particular book. That would be considered 'censorship' by this article.
Actively defending the trademark does not mean you have to engage in lawsuits against people that clearly aren't infringing on their trademark. Allowing use of 'Scrolls' does not invalidate the trademark 'Elder Scrolls', because they are not the same mark.
If somebody else began using 'Elder Scrolls' and they didn't challenge it, then they might lose their trademark. Even 'Eldir Scrolls' or 'Elder Scrols', because there's a reasonable chance of confusion.
He should be able to Trademark "Scrolls" as a title for a videogame. This wouldn't interfere with "Elder Scrolls" or a hypothetical future "Scrolls of Fiery Death" RPG. In other words, the point of trademark is to prevent somebody else from selling a similar product with the same name. It does not grant control all uses of a particular word, or other combination of words, or that word in other contexts.
Buy buying second hand, you still help them make money.
True, and that's often overlooked by the 'reselling is stealing' crowd. However, it's an incremental profit. It's less money than they would have made by selling a new game to a new customer, and so would still be viewed by that type as theft.
No, it's more like: I don't like the company making those clothes, but the clothes are decent, so I buy them from a thrift shop. In other words, a perfectly acceptable preference.
The people who think second hand purchases are stealing are not just easily swayed by company PR, they're a true danger to our rights.
Here's some advice. The above post sounds like somebody giving their opinion about nutrition, and ending with 'be sure to swipe a crystal over your vegetable to harmonize the green vibrations'. In other words, ending a post with an absolutely crazy statement undercuts everything else of possible value that you said. If you actually believe that used markets are theft, keep it to yourself while in reasonable company, so as not to have those reasonable people shun you.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the problem. Not the actual amount paid out in legal fees, but the fact that our entire diagnostic system is influenced by the fear of litigation. Patients are over-tested and treated overly-conservatively, because doctors don't want blame and patients don't push back.
Here's my cure for the American healthcare system, by the way: The likely cost of any non-emergency procedure or test has to be given to the patient before it is performed. Right now, it's like pulling teeth to get even an estimate. I think this would immediately drop healthcare costs by a third.
it's almost impossible to take an image on another planet and accurately render it.
No harder than it is to do the same with an image from our own planet.
I'm sure I'm not the only South African who read the first part of the headline and wondered briefly why /. was commenting on the the SA vs Samoa match in the rugby world cup tomorrow ...
Maybe not, but I can assure you no American had any such thought. I'm not sure any American could have that thought.
Than, then? So then than?
Right now, it's far cheaper to buy bitcoins with cash than to pay the power cost to mine them. If you think bitcoins will be the currency of the future, go spend a few hundred dollars on them.
ESPN, for example, is watched by 10%-15% of subscribers in any market. Yet every last customer pays for it.
You're joking, right? You do realize that this is the US, and football season has started, right?
I think this is one of those cases where a non-sports fan finds it inconceivable that as many as X% people watch sports regularly, and a sports fan finds it inconceivable that as few as X% people watch sports regularly. Both sides are extrapolating from their own experience and social groups.
Anybody got real stats?
They can charge whatever they want. If they charge too much, they'll end up making less money. If they rip out the most expensive part of a $50 package, charge $50 +$25 for the combination, and make more money, then they'll be happy and stay that way. If it reduces sales, they'll be unhappy and change it back.
The determining factor is how unhappy customers are with the changes. If it's too high, they'll leave. If it's not too high, they'll continue buying the product. That's how the marketplace works.
I'd like to see some stats. How many men watch, say, at least one sporting event per week? I have no idea if that's 60% or 10%. I watch one per year, on a particularly busy year, but this isn't the sort of thing you can judge by anecdotal evidence.
State law, not federal. Most people acknowledge that states have far more regulatory power over their economy than the federal government has.
Quoting another poster: Libertarians are not anarchists, just like American liberals are not communists. Wanting less government does not mean wanting no government.
You've already been answered by someone in this thread. Somolia has no government, and no support of individual rights. That is very clearly not what libertarians advocate or desire, so it does not serve as a invalidation of libertarianism.
The next question is... will people in this thread stop using that invalid Somolia comparison? I bet I know the answer to that....
No, they don't mandate car insurance. ('They' refers to Federal government.)
States mandate it. That's entirely different. Many people who think that Obamacare is unconstitutional wouldn't have any legal objections to states implementing it.
It seems that the distinction between state and federal powers is misunderstood by many people. It's as significant a separation of powers as that between the Legislative/Executive/Judicial branches.
You think that clause in the preamble gives the federal government license to do anything it decides would benefit the general welfare of the US? Anything?
The draft? Educational and career choices? Wealth equalization? Imminent domain seizures? Omnipresent surveillance?
The clause is actually there to present the motive for creating a constitutional government. Later in the document the exact powers of the government are listed, and arbitrary powers to promote the welfare in any way the current administration wishes are very clearly NOT present.
deny to medical treatment to anyone not wearing a seat belt during a crash,
There's a difference between 'deny' and 'not give'. No libertarian would try to deny anybody healthcare. They would just object to forcing people to give healthcare against their will.
I think the critical distinction that people miss is the difference between federal and state law. There is no federal law mandating motorcycle helmets. There is no federal law mandating seatbelt use. They don't have that power. Those are state matters.
More critical than nearly any other issue, more important than healthcare, is that we have a government that respects the rule of law. The constitution must be followed, or amended using the proper procedures. Giving the federal government a power the constitution doesn't allow is extremely dangerous, no matter how good or beneficial that power might be.
The state does, not the federal government. Obamacare might have been constitutional if adapted and managed by the states, on a state-by-state basis. States (are supposed to) have much more power than the federal government in managing their own commerce.
In a practical sense, the user agent may be what you have to resort to. However, the ideal solution would be to query specifically for screen resolution, bandwidth, and so on. That way an app would work on all devices and browsers, even those not invented yet.
Does HTML5 have formal provisions for that sort of granular capability checking? I have been away from web development for a while.
The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.
That's a pretty damn general statement. Keep in mind that a big chunk of conservatives are highly libertarian, and probably support free speech more than anybody. It also ignores the highly intolerant portion of the left, who call for rules against certain types of 'hate' speech. Be more specific with your criticisms.
There's a difference between deciding that your child shouldn't read a certain book and challenging it, which is essentially asking that no child should be allowed to read it.
But this list includes objections to required reading books. That IS simply asking that your child not be forced to read it. I'm completely against book censorship, but can imagine a circumstance where I would object to my child being required to read a particular book. That would be considered 'censorship' by this article.
Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, it requires trademark holder to sue no matter what.
No. Only if their trademarked term is being used. It's not, so they are in no danger of losing it.
Actively defending the trademark does not mean you have to engage in lawsuits against people that clearly aren't infringing on their trademark. Allowing use of 'Scrolls' does not invalidate the trademark 'Elder Scrolls', because they are not the same mark.
If somebody else began using 'Elder Scrolls' and they didn't challenge it, then they might lose their trademark. Even 'Eldir Scrolls' or 'Elder Scrols', because there's a reasonable chance of confusion.
He should be able to Trademark "Scrolls" as a title for a videogame. This wouldn't interfere with "Elder Scrolls" or a hypothetical future "Scrolls of Fiery Death" RPG. In other words, the point of trademark is to prevent somebody else from selling a similar product with the same name. It does not grant control all uses of a particular word, or other combination of words, or that word in other contexts.
Buy buying second hand, you still help them make money.
True, and that's often overlooked by the 'reselling is stealing' crowd. However, it's an incremental profit. It's less money than they would have made by selling a new game to a new customer, and so would still be viewed by that type as theft.
No, it's more like: I don't like the company making those clothes, but the clothes are decent, so I buy them from a thrift shop. In other words, a perfectly acceptable preference.
The people who think second hand purchases are stealing are not just easily swayed by company PR, they're a true danger to our rights.
It's well established in the gaming community.
No it's not.
Stealing? You equate reselling with stealing?
Here's some advice. The above post sounds like somebody giving their opinion about nutrition, and ending with 'be sure to swipe a crystal over your vegetable to harmonize the green vibrations'. In other words, ending a post with an absolutely crazy statement undercuts everything else of possible value that you said. If you actually believe that used markets are theft, keep it to yourself while in reasonable company, so as not to have those reasonable people shun you.