But there are ALWAYS ways to improve products. You can't blame the fact that some development teams pick items that don't actually improve things. Even with your example, tires, I'm sure there are regular advancements in tire and rubber technology. Your tires might do the job, but newer tires will do it for longer, be more puncture resistant, and quieter on the highway as well.
I always think for software, if there aren't any obvious/good UI or feature additions, then focus on performance/stability. You can ALWAYS get better at those, and thus every piece of software has the ability to regularly release "something new".
I hate copyright laws as much as anyone here, but I spent a bit of time trying to see the issue from the other side. Perhaps there is a better compromise solution that will make both sides happy.
Very few creative works are made outside of the employment/assistance of a company (corporation) - think about anything you create for your employer, such as software. This is just naturally seen as the company's property, and rightly so. So the whole "after death" thing doesn't really make sense. Why then after some arbitrary length of time would a company be forced to give up an asset? A better example I can think of is Mickey Mouse; he's an active part of the Disney brand. What benefit could we possibly get from a commercial Mickey Mouse competitor?
What I propose is to totally break up commercial and non-commercial copying distinctions (as I thought were originally intended). Allow a company to continue perpetual ownership of commercial copy rights and uses, by say, paying a license fee every year. For works that are distributed among the public (music, movies, etc.), allow for the same limited but arbitrary grace period (14 years or shorter), after which all non-commercial copying is 100% unrestricted.
Note this would still make torrent sites illegal, since they are often obtaining revenue through visits/ad displays (a commercial use) driven by use of copyrighted content. Your neighbor copying a DVD, no commercial exchange involved? Totally unrestricted.
I read a book once with a good thought experiment to think about the size and shape of the universe. It helps to first imagine a 2d space with similar qualities...
What 2d space is "infinite" and what does it look like? Well, look no further than the earth - the surface of our planet is two dimensional, though if you were to point yourself in any direction and start walking, you would eventually end up where you started. If you had no other frame of reference (eg could go into space and look at the planet), the space would appear "infinite". Thus, if you take a 2d space and lay it onto a sphere shape, you create a continuous, infinite universe even though the amount of 2d space is definitely finite.
The question then becomes, onto what shape do you map a 3d space to get the same effect (eg our universe)?
Mod parent up. This has been the most infuriating thing about watching the environmental movement go. Attacking the supply side of consumer demand and energy production, while most of them epitomize the exact kind of extravagant energy-intensive lifestyle that causes the problem in the first place. Jet setting all over the world, owning huge homes, even those fancy coffees from some back swamp in Africa take a lot of gas to get all the way into your plastic cup!
It's exactly like the war on drugs.. how long have we watched them go after the supply side (dealers, traffickers) with utterly no success whatsoever? As long as the heavy demand is there, someone else will swiftly pop into place. Further, people DO NOT want to and WILL NOT give up their energy demands, they make life too enjoyable. Those energy demands will not be met without fossil fuels, plain and simply.
Do you realize how f*cked up it sounds to someone outside of the US that you'd need to negotiate health insurance with a company that's hiring you? Do you negotiate police response coverage and home fire insurance as well?
Bingo. The "cheap" labour has shown time and time again to be factory educated folks with singular skill sets and no ability to think critically or act independently. Globalization has changed everything, and it's fun to watch the death of overseas outsourcing - anyone over there who is remotely competent will no longer work for pitiful wages.
Tell that to the former senior engineers at Texas Instruments who were laid off while making $150k while their Indian replacements were paid $50k.
Who cares? It was a business decision by those who OWN the business - it was either a good move and it will work out well or it wasn't and the company will suffer. If someone is as good or better than you and willing to work for a third of what you do, then suck it up and YOU have to up your game.
People here worry far too much about this crap. I've been through it multiple times, and it's actually made me much more confident in my employability. Repeatedly, I've found those people who'll accept a third of the salary deliver far less than a third of the value. This isn't 2000 anymore, anyone overseas who is competent and highly talented doesn't settle for cheap wages anymore - they want the same $150k the North American was earning, and they do find it.
The value of anything is how much other people think it's worth.
Wrong - you are conflating the ideas of value and price. Many people pay exorbitant prices for things with little value, or very little for things of high value. Toilet paper for example really doesn't cost that much but it sure has a huge value for you.
Value varies across people. Perhaps the pokemon cards enable one person to enjoy their time and be part of a certain social group, to another their just pieces of cardboard. Price can change due to a multitude of factors, and the value to a person is just one of those factors.
Who cares what the other person's motivations are? This guy cares far too much about things that are none of his fucking business.
Remember the concept of a free country? Just the fact that someone says they want to do something is reason enough for you to shut the fuck up and let them do it. They don't need to explain their "motivations" to you, that's absolutely ridiculous. People like things for no reason at all, and we're SUPPOSED to be able to pursue that, regardless of what douchebags like that guys thinks.
Freedom is messy. This is a good time for that quote about those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. I find the arguments over safety even more ridiculous - he trumpets on about people owning guns being fearful but I see it the completely opposite way. Most fervent gun control advocates are so scared shitless that they and everyone they love will be gunned down, but its some high-number-of-nines likely they've never known ANYONE who's been shot. Pure stupidity and another concealed attempt, just like churches were so good at, to control other's behaviour and only do what you see as fun and right.
Not true at all, I care quite a bit about protests when they happen and the protesters involved, and you should too.
There are actually very few things that get me, personally, upset enough to march on the government. Sure lots of things piss me off, but nothing so serious for many, many years that would cause me to join protest.
So that said, these people fill an EXTREMELY important duty - they test my rights when I otherwise would not. Some of the time I even heartily disagree with the protest, but I always watch to see how they are treated, for if it was something meaningful enough to me, I must assume that how I would be treated as well.
Listen, you'll all think this is horribly selfish and that I'm worse than Hitler, but I enjoy hopping in my truck and driving out to the mountains whenever I feel like it. Or a roadtrip anywhere. Or just to the theater in my own comfortable vehicle whenever I feel like it.
Private, vehicular transportation and the system of roads we have built is the single largest freedom we have as regular citizens. What greater purpose do we have other than living our lives to the fullest?
Go suffer for yourself, enjoy the 3 city blocks you live in and never leave, pretend you somehow demand less hydrocarbons from society, and feel good about all the shameless preaching you'll do about it.
If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline with 100% of their own money, they can do it. Don't do it with US taxpayer money.
What on earth gave you the idea US taxpayer money was being used to build this pipeline, and not TC's capital? Wow, guess I haven't read the craziest of the anti-KXL propaganda...
*Sigh*. Another tired argument from someone who doesn't know anything about the industry.
This is driven by economics and the free market, I have no idea what brain twisting you've done to see this as a "societal" thing. Argue if you want that we should make poor economic decisions and build refineries, but at least be aware of what you're arguing for.
I'll give a simple example to illustrate. Imagine you can take a barrel of oil out of the ground, and sell it raw for $50. Or, you can refine the barrel into multiple products through a complicated process, and sell the same volume for $60. Now realize a refinery is massive, dirty (pollution), and extremely expensive (maybe $4-5 billion).
Most of the refining capacity has been available on the gulf coast for a long time as they've been in the industry longer. They're willing to pay more for feedstock (oil) from a reliable, steady source. Why would we build new refineries, to either extract tiny gains or more likely huge losses? If we were to build all their refining capacity, and cut off their supply, their would increase demand and prices at those existing refineries, and make it even less profitable.
I guarantee you every energy company has run through the numbers, and I also guarantee you if they were profitable they'd be all over it.
"The biggest issue is the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer."
I hope people take a minute and think critically about this to see just what ridiculous propaganda from the environmental extremists this is.
An aquifer is massive and most of the water is deep. Pipelines are not buried deep - on a large scale, the pipeline is so small in comparison, to think that much product could leak, seep that deep, and then spread to any measurable portion of the aquifer is pure delusion.
You must have some special circumstances as not all of those are bad. Coffee is actually very healthy for you, contains a good dose of anti-oxidants, and has been proven to cut risk of diabetes drastically (improvement has been shown with up to 6 cups per day).
Also, dairy gets a bad rap for some reason, but dairy is evolution-formulated mammal food. It contains copious amounts of fat and protein that are extremely good for you, and is also fortified with vitamins A & D.Go check one of those expensive protein shakes - you'll find the same size glass of regular milk has almost as much protein and calories (taking whole milk). I was always quite skinny and had major problems eating enough calories to gain weight, but 6 months after starting to drink a lot of dairy (and a light exercise routine) you can see my muscles through my shirt. Ladies are similarly interested.
But yes if you have a weight problem adding more calories isn't going to help you, but that has nothing to do with dairy other than the fact it's high in calories. They're all good calories.
Negotiating is key to any transaction, and the only thing your post says is that you don't have any negotiation skills whatsoever. You leave money on the table and this fear has probably cost you considerably.
Most people, myself included, don't find it worthwhile to negotiate prices on small items, but EVERYTHING has negotiating room.
In fact, if you ever recognize your weakness here and try to fix it, one of the first things an instructor of a negotiating class will tell you is how fearful North American are about negotiating on price compared to other places. It is massively in your self interest to increase your skill in that area.
instead of lying to us and telling us what is good for corporations benefits us.
See, this sounds great and all, but really doesn't make any sense.
Corporations (or businesses) and the vehicle through which private money can get products to consumers in the US. You wouldn't have widespread professional employment options without corporations, which drives your middle class. And the consumerism of that middle class drives over 70% of the massive economy. You would be fucked, and a third world country without that.
No, pretty much your entire comfy, Starbucks sippin' existence is because the government serves the interests of corporations. Always fun to bite the hand that feeds, though.
Why, oh why on earth would we want to get rid of consumerism? It's what's driven the amazing, comfortable lives we now lead and the amazing products we can buy. The ever increasing demand is what has led to almost every innovation imaginable in technology, because people are competing for those sales.
I am by no means rich but I do buy a lot (no debt), and I can't fathom the argument that these things are pointless or do not make my life better. Just some at the top of my mind:
- I have a truck I can comfortably drive to mountains every other weekend and is very reliable, which was driven by many years of consumer demand for vehicle technology. Imagine if the vehicles were the same as 80 years ago because no one bought them? It would take me days to cover the same distance!
- I've bought a lot of hiking gear made from materials that have only recently been invented because people compete for sales of the lightest equipment.
- I have skis, a kayak, a 4k TV, and so much other great stuff I could never even list it all.
The argument that consumerism doesn't make people's lives any better shouldn't even be given consideration.
As a non-American it struck me as both funny and sad the first thought/comment on here was about insurance and who pays for all this. Of course that's a consideration, but not at all primary when thinking about the benefits of this technology.
It really is nonsensical by now - just go single payer, it makes too much sense. Readily available data from many countries show it is actually (gasp!) cheaper and provides better outcomes. Well, save for the handful of people rich enough to buy all the doctors, top-of-the-line medical equipment, and immediately jump to the front of the line ahead of those who require care more. I have an inkling the last point is the biggest reason why single-payer hasn't (and may never) happen in the US - once cost factor is removed, hospitals return to true triage systems and treat the sickest, not the richest, people first.
Claiming economic migrants just want good benefits is a disgrace, as you are attempting to cast them all as acting in poor faith. Most want to work...
First you criticize someone for generalizing this group, then you do the same thing yourself in the following sentence. Which is it. Do YOU have any sources to confirm?
Apple on the other hand has figured out how to get poor people on FOOD STAMPS to buy their premium phones.
Right, because in most cases (and what is still true), the service provider pays for most of the up-front cost of the phone in order for you to contract service through them. I laugh if you think Apple's sales numbers would be even close to what they are now should people be required to shell out the $1000+ Apple actually charges for their phones up front.
In the end, didn't he turn out to be correct? Over the last few years, people have flocked back to SUVs and trucks in droves. So doesn't that confirm that people were only buying hybrids because of temporary cost reasons?
One thing that amazes me about American politics is how they get caught up on certain issues forever, while a lot of other countries seem to just move on to newer problems after making a decision. Abortion is a good example - I could barely believe how Planned Parenthood funding was a core debate subject at the Republican leader debate (sad when that was the most entertaining TV on).
Just in the last year, I've added single payer health care to the list. We had some staff from a subsidiary in the US come up here for a few days (Canada), and how vehemently and confidently they would disparage a health care system clearly so much better than their own.. the cognitive dissonance against their better interest is staggering. Even typical extreme conservatives can't follow the logic of how a single payer can drastically reduce costs, nor understand how they're already funding social health care for the most expensive groups, the poor and elderly. Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
The most famous example most kids of the 90s will remember: when your mom referred to every video game system as a Nintendo. Dammit mom for the last time it's my Sega Genesis!!
Slashdot Mirror
But there are ALWAYS ways to improve products. You can't blame the fact that some development teams pick items that don't actually improve things. Even with your example, tires, I'm sure there are regular advancements in tire and rubber technology. Your tires might do the job, but newer tires will do it for longer, be more puncture resistant, and quieter on the highway as well.
I always think for software, if there aren't any obvious/good UI or feature additions, then focus on performance/stability. You can ALWAYS get better at those, and thus every piece of software has the ability to regularly release "something new".
I hate copyright laws as much as anyone here, but I spent a bit of time trying to see the issue from the other side. Perhaps there is a better compromise solution that will make both sides happy.
Very few creative works are made outside of the employment/assistance of a company (corporation) - think about anything you create for your employer, such as software. This is just naturally seen as the company's property, and rightly so. So the whole "after death" thing doesn't really make sense. Why then after some arbitrary length of time would a company be forced to give up an asset? A better example I can think of is Mickey Mouse; he's an active part of the Disney brand. What benefit could we possibly get from a commercial Mickey Mouse competitor?
What I propose is to totally break up commercial and non-commercial copying distinctions (as I thought were originally intended). Allow a company to continue perpetual ownership of commercial copy rights and uses, by say, paying a license fee every year. For works that are distributed among the public (music, movies, etc.), allow for the same limited but arbitrary grace period (14 years or shorter), after which all non-commercial copying is 100% unrestricted.
Note this would still make torrent sites illegal, since they are often obtaining revenue through visits/ad displays (a commercial use) driven by use of copyrighted content. Your neighbor copying a DVD, no commercial exchange involved? Totally unrestricted.
I read a book once with a good thought experiment to think about the size and shape of the universe. It helps to first imagine a 2d space with similar qualities...
What 2d space is "infinite" and what does it look like? Well, look no further than the earth - the surface of our planet is two dimensional, though if you were to point yourself in any direction and start walking, you would eventually end up where you started. If you had no other frame of reference (eg could go into space and look at the planet), the space would appear "infinite". Thus, if you take a 2d space and lay it onto a sphere shape, you create a continuous, infinite universe even though the amount of 2d space is definitely finite.
The question then becomes, onto what shape do you map a 3d space to get the same effect (eg our universe)?
Easy: death. No matter how educated someone is, everyone fears death and will forever be uncertain about what happens at that point.
The big polluters are you and I
Mod parent up. This has been the most infuriating thing about watching the environmental movement go. Attacking the supply side of consumer demand and energy production, while most of them epitomize the exact kind of extravagant energy-intensive lifestyle that causes the problem in the first place. Jet setting all over the world, owning huge homes, even those fancy coffees from some back swamp in Africa take a lot of gas to get all the way into your plastic cup!
It's exactly like the war on drugs.. how long have we watched them go after the supply side (dealers, traffickers) with utterly no success whatsoever? As long as the heavy demand is there, someone else will swiftly pop into place. Further, people DO NOT want to and WILL NOT give up their energy demands, they make life too enjoyable. Those energy demands will not be met without fossil fuels, plain and simply.
Do you realize how f*cked up it sounds to someone outside of the US that you'd need to negotiate health insurance with a company that's hiring you? Do you negotiate police response coverage and home fire insurance as well?
Bingo. The "cheap" labour has shown time and time again to be factory educated folks with singular skill sets and no ability to think critically or act independently. Globalization has changed everything, and it's fun to watch the death of overseas outsourcing - anyone over there who is remotely competent will no longer work for pitiful wages.
Tell that to the former senior engineers at Texas Instruments who were laid off while making $150k while their Indian replacements were paid $50k.
Who cares? It was a business decision by those who OWN the business - it was either a good move and it will work out well or it wasn't and the company will suffer. If someone is as good or better than you and willing to work for a third of what you do, then suck it up and YOU have to up your game.
People here worry far too much about this crap. I've been through it multiple times, and it's actually made me much more confident in my employability. Repeatedly, I've found those people who'll accept a third of the salary deliver far less than a third of the value. This isn't 2000 anymore, anyone overseas who is competent and highly talented doesn't settle for cheap wages anymore - they want the same $150k the North American was earning, and they do find it.
The value of anything is how much other people think it's worth.
Wrong - you are conflating the ideas of value and price. Many people pay exorbitant prices for things with little value, or very little for things of high value. Toilet paper for example really doesn't cost that much but it sure has a huge value for you.
Value varies across people. Perhaps the pokemon cards enable one person to enjoy their time and be part of a certain social group, to another their just pieces of cardboard. Price can change due to a multitude of factors, and the value to a person is just one of those factors.
Who cares what the other person's motivations are? This guy cares far too much about things that are none of his fucking business.
Remember the concept of a free country? Just the fact that someone says they want to do something is reason enough for you to shut the fuck up and let them do it. They don't need to explain their "motivations" to you, that's absolutely ridiculous. People like things for no reason at all, and we're SUPPOSED to be able to pursue that, regardless of what douchebags like that guys thinks.
Freedom is messy. This is a good time for that quote about those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. I find the arguments over safety even more ridiculous - he trumpets on about people owning guns being fearful but I see it the completely opposite way. Most fervent gun control advocates are so scared shitless that they and everyone they love will be gunned down, but its some high-number-of-nines likely they've never known ANYONE who's been shot. Pure stupidity and another concealed attempt, just like churches were so good at, to control other's behaviour and only do what you see as fun and right.
Nobody gives a fuck about protesters
Not true at all, I care quite a bit about protests when they happen and the protesters involved, and you should too.
There are actually very few things that get me, personally, upset enough to march on the government. Sure lots of things piss me off, but nothing so serious for many, many years that would cause me to join protest.
So that said, these people fill an EXTREMELY important duty - they test my rights when I otherwise would not. Some of the time I even heartily disagree with the protest, but I always watch to see how they are treated, for if it was something meaningful enough to me, I must assume that how I would be treated as well.
moving away from internal combustion engines?
No! Go to hell!
Listen, you'll all think this is horribly selfish and that I'm worse than Hitler, but I enjoy hopping in my truck and driving out to the mountains whenever I feel like it. Or a roadtrip anywhere. Or just to the theater in my own comfortable vehicle whenever I feel like it.
Private, vehicular transportation and the system of roads we have built is the single largest freedom we have as regular citizens. What greater purpose do we have other than living our lives to the fullest?
Go suffer for yourself, enjoy the 3 city blocks you live in and never leave, pretend you somehow demand less hydrocarbons from society, and feel good about all the shameless preaching you'll do about it.
If TransCanada wants to build the pipeline with 100% of their own money, they can do it. Don't do it with US taxpayer money.
What on earth gave you the idea US taxpayer money was being used to build this pipeline, and not TC's capital? Wow, guess I haven't read the craziest of the anti-KXL propaganda...
beyond the societal abilities of Canada
*Sigh*. Another tired argument from someone who doesn't know anything about the industry.
This is driven by economics and the free market, I have no idea what brain twisting you've done to see this as a "societal" thing. Argue if you want that we should make poor economic decisions and build refineries, but at least be aware of what you're arguing for.
I'll give a simple example to illustrate. Imagine you can take a barrel of oil out of the ground, and sell it raw for $50. Or, you can refine the barrel into multiple products through a complicated process, and sell the same volume for $60. Now realize a refinery is massive, dirty (pollution), and extremely expensive (maybe $4-5 billion).
Most of the refining capacity has been available on the gulf coast for a long time as they've been in the industry longer. They're willing to pay more for feedstock (oil) from a reliable, steady source. Why would we build new refineries, to either extract tiny gains or more likely huge losses? If we were to build all their refining capacity, and cut off their supply, their would increase demand and prices at those existing refineries, and make it even less profitable.
I guarantee you every energy company has run through the numbers, and I also guarantee you if they were profitable they'd be all over it.
"The biggest issue is the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer."
I hope people take a minute and think critically about this to see just what ridiculous propaganda from the environmental extremists this is.
An aquifer is massive and most of the water is deep. Pipelines are not buried deep - on a large scale, the pipeline is so small in comparison, to think that much product could leak, seep that deep, and then spread to any measurable portion of the aquifer is pure delusion.
You must have some special circumstances as not all of those are bad. Coffee is actually very healthy for you, contains a good dose of anti-oxidants, and has been proven to cut risk of diabetes drastically (improvement has been shown with up to 6 cups per day).
Also, dairy gets a bad rap for some reason, but dairy is evolution-formulated mammal food. It contains copious amounts of fat and protein that are extremely good for you, and is also fortified with vitamins A & D.Go check one of those expensive protein shakes - you'll find the same size glass of regular milk has almost as much protein and calories (taking whole milk). I was always quite skinny and had major problems eating enough calories to gain weight, but 6 months after starting to drink a lot of dairy (and a light exercise routine) you can see my muscles through my shirt. Ladies are similarly interested.
But yes if you have a weight problem adding more calories isn't going to help you, but that has nothing to do with dairy other than the fact it's high in calories. They're all good calories.
Negotiating is key to any transaction, and the only thing your post says is that you don't have any negotiation skills whatsoever. You leave money on the table and this fear has probably cost you considerably.
Most people, myself included, don't find it worthwhile to negotiate prices on small items, but EVERYTHING has negotiating room.
In fact, if you ever recognize your weakness here and try to fix it, one of the first things an instructor of a negotiating class will tell you is how fearful North American are about negotiating on price compared to other places. It is massively in your self interest to increase your skill in that area.
instead of lying to us and telling us what is good for corporations benefits us.
See, this sounds great and all, but really doesn't make any sense.
Corporations (or businesses) and the vehicle through which private money can get products to consumers in the US. You wouldn't have widespread professional employment options without corporations, which drives your middle class. And the consumerism of that middle class drives over 70% of the massive economy. You would be fucked, and a third world country without that.
No, pretty much your entire comfy, Starbucks sippin' existence is because the government serves the interests of corporations. Always fun to bite the hand that feeds, though.
I'll bite, and provide a counterpoint.
Why, oh why on earth would we want to get rid of consumerism? It's what's driven the amazing, comfortable lives we now lead and the amazing products we can buy. The ever increasing demand is what has led to almost every innovation imaginable in technology, because people are competing for those sales. I am by no means rich but I do buy a lot (no debt), and I can't fathom the argument that these things are pointless or do not make my life better. Just some at the top of my mind:
- I have a truck I can comfortably drive to mountains every other weekend and is very reliable, which was driven by many years of consumer demand for vehicle technology. Imagine if the vehicles were the same as 80 years ago because no one bought them? It would take me days to cover the same distance!
- I've bought a lot of hiking gear made from materials that have only recently been invented because people compete for sales of the lightest equipment.
- I have skis, a kayak, a 4k TV, and so much other great stuff I could never even list it all.
The argument that consumerism doesn't make people's lives any better shouldn't even be given consideration.
If the insurance pays
As a non-American it struck me as both funny and sad the first thought/comment on here was about insurance and who pays for all this. Of course that's a consideration, but not at all primary when thinking about the benefits of this technology.
It really is nonsensical by now - just go single payer, it makes too much sense. Readily available data from many countries show it is actually (gasp!) cheaper and provides better outcomes. Well, save for the handful of people rich enough to buy all the doctors, top-of-the-line medical equipment, and immediately jump to the front of the line ahead of those who require care more. I have an inkling the last point is the biggest reason why single-payer hasn't (and may never) happen in the US - once cost factor is removed, hospitals return to true triage systems and treat the sickest, not the richest, people first.
Claiming economic migrants just want good benefits is a disgrace, as you are attempting to cast them all as acting in poor faith. Most want to work...
First you criticize someone for generalizing this group, then you do the same thing yourself in the following sentence. Which is it. Do YOU have any sources to confirm?
Apple on the other hand has figured out how to get poor people on FOOD STAMPS to buy their premium phones.
Right, because in most cases (and what is still true), the service provider pays for most of the up-front cost of the phone in order for you to contract service through them. I laugh if you think Apple's sales numbers would be even close to what they are now should people be required to shell out the $1000+ Apple actually charges for their phones up front.
In the end, didn't he turn out to be correct? Over the last few years, people have flocked back to SUVs and trucks in droves. So doesn't that confirm that people were only buying hybrids because of temporary cost reasons?
One thing that amazes me about American politics is how they get caught up on certain issues forever, while a lot of other countries seem to just move on to newer problems after making a decision. Abortion is a good example - I could barely believe how Planned Parenthood funding was a core debate subject at the Republican leader debate (sad when that was the most entertaining TV on).
Just in the last year, I've added single payer health care to the list. We had some staff from a subsidiary in the US come up here for a few days (Canada), and how vehemently and confidently they would disparage a health care system clearly so much better than their own.. the cognitive dissonance against their better interest is staggering. Even typical extreme conservatives can't follow the logic of how a single payer can drastically reduce costs, nor understand how they're already funding social health care for the most expensive groups, the poor and elderly. Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
The most famous example most kids of the 90s will remember: when your mom referred to every video game system as a Nintendo. Dammit mom for the last time it's my Sega Genesis!!