Great point. Imagine how much a company like Budweiser pays for one commercial during something like the recent basketball playoffs. In the 10s of thousands, right? Now imagine them spending $100K to fund a low budget TV show like this one, and getting, say, 2 exclusive commercials per episode inserted. If the season runs for 10 shows, then they get 20 views per subscriber per season. If they keep them short enough, people won't even mute or skip them since it's just one commercial. Since 10 shows is about 3 months of production, if a group ran 4 shows a year they would have a budget of $400 for "production"; and remember, the lion's share of the cost of "production" is everyone's salaries (at least once the equipment/properties are paid for the first time). This is the kind of project that could make a good living for people after a year or so of start up time. In the real world, a project which pays everyone a good salary and doesn't lose anyone money is a good thing; just because it's not sexy in that it makes investors bucket loads of cash doesn't mean that it's not a project that has great value as an end in itself.
Showing it out of order may not have helped, but it couldn't have caused it's demise alone. I didn't see the first episode first, but what I did see, "Our Mrs. Reynolds" and then "Jaynestown", caused me to run out and get the complete series. I've bought it 5 times so far including gifts, plus Serenity. It's the only TV I've ever watched more than two viewings of an episode. In fact, I've watched an episode within the past 12 hours, "Trash". I couldn't tell you the names of most actors in any other TV series, and can't name a single episode name from another show, but I've picked up tons about Firefly just from repeated exposure. The show is fun, well filmed, well acted, and lasting. I'd like to think that if Mr. Weadon had been able to keep producing it on his own, and if iTunes distributed "indy" TV shows, or if BitTorrent had a pay infrastructure then like it has figured out now, then that show might still be on and getting paid for out of mere donations (heck, look how well "Dr. Horrible's" did). FF didn't fail due to any one reason other than that what can be summed up as "stupidity".
I'll check out this new show. If it's any good, I'll reward it with a donation and myself with a pat on the back for making the right decision when I got rid of cable TV.
I find it quite humors that a bunch of kids and a photo copier can produce single copies of a text cheaper then the publisher can in bulk
I believe I made the point in my post (see electronic books) that reproduction can be very cheap if you don't care about the quality of the medium. I'm glad that you find it humorous though; I'll laugh too when your business gets driven under by copyright violations.
However, it sounds like you missed the point of your lesson Freshman year. You heard "copy what I want and screw everyone who brought it to me", when you could have learned the much more valuable "I think I'll ask my professor what I'll need from each book, then go in with my friends on the books/parts we do need and share". In other words you learned to plan ahead a little by robbing the work of others, but you didn't learn to plan ahead and think at the same time so that you could find a solution which benefitted you and the people who did the work that you wanted to use. I repeat, if it's worth using, then it's worth paying for. If It's not worth paying for, then it's just not worth using. Keep it up though, it's been my experience that people get what they deserve in the long run.
The 2nd and 3rd generation copies were good for your classes. However, lost revenue for the publishers means cutting more corners and raising prices on subsequent editions. If you valued the product enough to use it, it's disgusting that you didn't value it enough to pay for it. That's what people miss in the copyright debate. If you don't like the premium, or the restrictions, or the quality, what have you, then don't use the product. If it's valuable enough to use, then it's valuable enough to pay what's being asked, or to work within the law to make it cost less. I don't like the current life+eternity rules any better than anyone else, but the solution is to not use what you aren't willing to pay for and to bring pressure to bear on or offer (legal) alternatives for the products which you do want. If we take the high ground and simply don't use things which are too expensive, or offer free alternatives, then eventually the system with adapt or collapse under it's own weight. Using the overpriced material illegally just gives the publishers ammunition on their side in the debate over copyright and fair use.
BTW, that $10-$30 each you paid is less than the publisher pays per copy for bulk production of the text in a binding that will last your lifetime. Think about the quality that you're really missing out on, or, if you don't care, then pressure the publisher for a cheap electronic alternative. You'll be putting printers out of work, but you're really not responsible for their jobs if you pay for an electronic copy. They can adapt or die too. You are, however, guilty of copyright infringement when you make your own copies, and that does put workers out of a job. Think about it. You saved some money that you could have taken a loan out to get, but the publishers, authors, printers, and distributors lost a sale not due to fair competition, but due to a crime which you committed.
I understand that marketing-driven words work...my point is that they shouldn't.
Huh? Is this a philosophy of yours that has rules about how humans should and should not behave? Or how the marketing words should or should not behave? 'Cause it seems to me like marketing works on a large percentage of the population directly, influences nearly everyone whether they want it to or not, and that's just a fact. Facts happen, saying that marketing "shouldn't" work is like saying that gravity shouldn't work. It does, deal with it.
Words, BTW, are almost never "meaningless". We can disagree on the meaning, twist them, play with them, and even misuse them to trick people, but they do mean something; maybe just not what you'd like them to. One good thing about Apple using "Retina" may be that it can be used as a reference resolution to compare other devices to.
Take it how you will but i think you are confusing what you personally would want to have with what is sufficient and functional for bot nets.
Take it for what it's worth, but I think that you're confusing Having A Hammer So I Think I'll Hammer Stuff and I'd Like That Table Router So I Could Cabinet-Make But It's Too Expensive So I Guess I'll Just Use My Hammer On These 2x4s Instead. People do the things they do with botnets because that's that they can do with them. I'm sure that a lot of herders would love to control Amazon's servers and be able to direct them against hardened targets like bank security with a chance of success.
In theory, if your friends are about as technologically inclined as most people, they could distribute the key further, but this is not much different than the current situation, where they could just copy your data from a website and hand it out to people.
Dig up people you used to persecute or burn incense and chant, it doesn't matter in any practical way to anyone with any sense.
But to the majority of people in the world, these things matter, changing their opinion, world view, etc. So, since these things matter to the majority, they should have import to anybody with the sense to realize that what matters to most people should matter (in some way) to us all. See what I did there?
I'll go further. Anyone taking any public position at all should have to "submit"; including (especially) all law enforcement types. Heck, if the census-takers had all been DNA screened against the criminal database, I'd worry a bit less about the possibility of my family letting them into the house.
And we can't have that, people getting along understanding each other's views and disagreeing in a civil manner. Nah we gotta fist-fuck you with assholish behavior to show you how wrong you are.
And let me tell you how glad I am that we can keep our conversation on such a civil level when disagreeing.
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Making some reasonable effort to show respect isn't always bad, but always respecting everyone's views is simply not possible. For example, I cannot show complete respect for a radical Christians's views that all adulterers should be stoned to death without disrespecting another radical Christian's views that the old testament laws don't apply anymore and that stoning adulterers is wrong. Incompatible world views exist, it's simply our choice as to which one's we're going to upset with our activities. Heck, a PETA member might even argue that poking that bear will end well for the bear when it gets a man-sized meal, so go ahead.
Hey, anybody notice that a lot of people are going on about the people who post about "correlation is not causation"? I wonder if there's a reason that's happening or if it's just coincidence...
Not in emulation, in hardware. See other posts for Amiga details. The old Apple Quadra 610 had the option of a NuBus card with a fully functional x86 motherboard-equivalent on it. Ahh, yes, from EveryMac: "The Quadra 610 PC-Compatible shipped with a 25 MHz Intel 486SX processor card that can have a maximum of 32 MB of RAM dedicated to the DOS/Windows operating system." I remember people running Win 3.1 in a window at full speed 'within' Mac OS 7- waaaay faster than the virtualizers of the day... They were strange times, the '90's, and there were really weird expansion cards available. Anyone remember the Apple IIe card for the LCII?
Do you read the posts that you're replying to? I said that Gizmodo received stolen goods and was within their right to ask Apple for proof that it belonged to them. I didn't mention the douche who sold them the phone at all. It's pretty clear that he's in trouble for selling goods that he didn't have the right to sell. TFA was about the warrants for Chen's apartment as well as the seller's. So, did you read the article or my post? Or did you read them but just not understand them?
I own an Apple laptop. If it was missing/stolen and someone handed it over to Apple just because it had the logo on it, I'd be pissed. Gizmodo may be guilty of receiving stolen property, but they knew that they were within their rights getting a positive assertion from Apple that it was their phone. Legally, it should have gone straight to the police (along with a FIFA request that they be informed of who claimed it so they could still write their story).
So, how do I get something defined as a trade secret so that I can sue people who photograph it? If it's a "secret", then how can a person possibly know beforehand that that they are committing a felony by photographing it? I mean, if the company was denying the existence of this product, how could anyone know that they were doing something wrong until Apple sent the letter stating that the device belonged to them. Once they did that, everyone handed the phone over. Heck, if there's a red-light photo of Grey using the phone in public, does that mean that the State of California is guilty of trade secret "violations"?
there is virtually no risk or overhead in the process
Except for the fact that we're discussing an unproven drug. If a drug company goes to the expense of proving something that's already a generic, then their competitors can produce it right away without having had the cost of running the trials. That doesn't make sense from a business/competitiveness standpoint. Nor was there a guarantee that this trial was going to pan out resulting in any usable drug at all, even a lower-profit one. Don't underestimate the gobs of money that are made on patentable drugs. It may be a crap shoot for the company to test a patentable drug, but the payoff of the few good bets really does pay off the bad ones and leave enough left over for some nice executive houses and company jets.
Insightful? Last I knew you were just as free as everyone else in the U.S. to write your representatives and have your voice added to the opinions being heard, and that's hardly news. That's the thing about the "Democracy" you righty whiners are always on about spreading across the world; when you're in the minority you still have to put up with the results, but you can organize and try to change the situation. You don't like something? Then do get a coalition together and take a few years to build a movement to change what you don't like! As for GP, perhaps his statement could be rephrased as 'we should have a say what it is used for'. It's not "tenuous reasoning", and it's damn well not "insightful", it's how we run our government and how we're setting up governments in the countries which we've taken over.
BTW, I love the way you pretend that it's a big secret that public money goes to NPR. It's only a secret to someone who's never heard their constant underwriting messages.
~Damn you and the GP! If we taught that objects (other than the stray meteor) don't do harm, it's the people who use them inappropriately, then we'd be teaching personal responsibility, rule of law, and how to get along without banning stupid shit for no reason! We can't have that!~
Really, weren't there already rules against vandalism? If that was enforced when the mess occured, and not prior to it, then kids might learn that they get in trouble for misusing objects. Other kids might look and say, "So, if I eat my candy and don't get it all over then it's ok, but if I use it to gum up the copy machine then I'll get in trouble" and learn how to get along in the world. All this girl learned is that rules are arbitrarily made up and enforced by those with power over her, so she may as well do whatever the hell she wants 'cause eventually someone is gonna kicker her in the teeth with a made up rule about something she'd least expect.
Idiotic? How about believing that there is any reason these machines were invented, sold to an unaware public, and deployed other than to make the manufacturer, their investors, and those whom the manufacturer pays off money. They're marketed as making us safer (an argument which I reject), and the TSA sometimes gets off on being the "big man with the gun", but those are side effects of a product who's sole purpose is to make it purveyors money.
Well, if my boss told me to break into someone's house, or even to look in the windows because they though that that someone had stolen equipment from work I'd say "sure, as soon as the police officer with the warrant gets here I'll be happy to help him!" If a crime hasn't occurred, then it's not worth activating a "feature" like this. If it has occurred, then it's worth getting the police involved. If it's in between, then it's time to call your insurance company and see if they'll pay the claim for the "stolen" equipment anyway. (Most times if you report it stolen and show the police report you'll get your money. It's not your job to track down the criminals or the equipment, it's the police's.)
To your second point, I know that common sense isn't that common, but really, unless there's a signed document from these kids parents allowing the camera to be turned on, I think that everyone involved should go to jail for at least a little while. It's illegal to film in someone's bedroom without their permission. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that. I know that we all love the stories about the person who used "back to my Mac" to take pictures of the criminal who took their laptop, but just wait until someone does that with a computer that's been stolen by a teenage girl and gets nailed for "creation of child porn" when they track their computer while she's dressing in the morning.
I was just about to mod this "funny" when I noticed the "informative" mod. I'm still laughing so hard at that that I'm all teared up.
Really, are these health professionals truly upset or is some journalist making a story? 3 hours of games is a huge reduction for most kids, let alone ones that would go to this camp. And they've got at least 8 hours for other activities...beavers beware!
LOL, you're obviously not in in the 'States. I freaking got a large post card yesterday from our local hospital to advertise how they're cutting down on paper waste and "going green". I kid you not. We have billboards, flier's, direct-mailings, radio and TV ads, location-aware internet ads, and some ads that I'm not remembering right now for hospitals and "health-groups". The Doctor's is not somewhere to go in the 'States to get diagnosed/treated, it's place that's sold to you as an experience; one that encourages you to go even if it's not needed. Most of the "Health Care Debate" over here isn't about the "haves" losing the care that they need, it's about us _maybe_ not being able to go into the Doctor's office for every hang-nail and splinter that they should just take care of themselves.
I know that when I got divorced the lawyer pointed out that one of the grounds to sue for divorce with cause was refusal of marital "rights". Granted, one night wouldn't have counted, but if you're denied for something like a year straight then you have a court case.
And you thought that you were just being funny. It's amazing what rights contract law can grant, and what obligations it can impose.
Slashdot Mirror
Great point. Imagine how much a company like Budweiser pays for one commercial during something like the recent basketball playoffs. In the 10s of thousands, right? Now imagine them spending $100K to fund a low budget TV show like this one, and getting, say, 2 exclusive commercials per episode inserted. If the season runs for 10 shows, then they get 20 views per subscriber per season. If they keep them short enough, people won't even mute or skip them since it's just one commercial. Since 10 shows is about 3 months of production, if a group ran 4 shows a year they would have a budget of $400 for "production"; and remember, the lion's share of the cost of "production" is everyone's salaries (at least once the equipment/properties are paid for the first time). This is the kind of project that could make a good living for people after a year or so of start up time. In the real world, a project which pays everyone a good salary and doesn't lose anyone money is a good thing; just because it's not sexy in that it makes investors bucket loads of cash doesn't mean that it's not a project that has great value as an end in itself.
Showing it out of order may not have helped, but it couldn't have caused it's demise alone. I didn't see the first episode first, but what I did see, "Our Mrs. Reynolds" and then "Jaynestown", caused me to run out and get the complete series. I've bought it 5 times so far including gifts, plus Serenity. It's the only TV I've ever watched more than two viewings of an episode. In fact, I've watched an episode within the past 12 hours, "Trash". I couldn't tell you the names of most actors in any other TV series, and can't name a single episode name from another show, but I've picked up tons about Firefly just from repeated exposure. The show is fun, well filmed, well acted, and lasting. I'd like to think that if Mr. Weadon had been able to keep producing it on his own, and if iTunes distributed "indy" TV shows, or if BitTorrent had a pay infrastructure then like it has figured out now, then that show might still be on and getting paid for out of mere donations (heck, look how well "Dr. Horrible's" did). FF didn't fail due to any one reason other than that what can be summed up as "stupidity".
I'll check out this new show. If it's any good, I'll reward it with a donation and myself with a pat on the back for making the right decision when I got rid of cable TV.
I believe I made the point in my post (see electronic books) that reproduction can be very cheap if you don't care about the quality of the medium. I'm glad that you find it humorous though; I'll laugh too when your business gets driven under by copyright violations.
However, it sounds like you missed the point of your lesson Freshman year. You heard "copy what I want and screw everyone who brought it to me", when you could have learned the much more valuable "I think I'll ask my professor what I'll need from each book, then go in with my friends on the books/parts we do need and share". In other words you learned to plan ahead a little by robbing the work of others, but you didn't learn to plan ahead and think at the same time so that you could find a solution which benefitted you and the people who did the work that you wanted to use. I repeat, if it's worth using, then it's worth paying for. If It's not worth paying for, then it's just not worth using. Keep it up though, it's been my experience that people get what they deserve in the long run.
The 2nd and 3rd generation copies were good for your classes. However, lost revenue for the publishers means cutting more corners and raising prices on subsequent editions. If you valued the product enough to use it, it's disgusting that you didn't value it enough to pay for it. That's what people miss in the copyright debate. If you don't like the premium, or the restrictions, or the quality, what have you, then don't use the product. If it's valuable enough to use, then it's valuable enough to pay what's being asked, or to work within the law to make it cost less. I don't like the current life+eternity rules any better than anyone else, but the solution is to not use what you aren't willing to pay for and to bring pressure to bear on or offer (legal) alternatives for the products which you do want. If we take the high ground and simply don't use things which are too expensive, or offer free alternatives, then eventually the system with adapt or collapse under it's own weight. Using the overpriced material illegally just gives the publishers ammunition on their side in the debate over copyright and fair use.
BTW, that $10-$30 each you paid is less than the publisher pays per copy for bulk production of the text in a binding that will last your lifetime. Think about the quality that you're really missing out on, or, if you don't care, then pressure the publisher for a cheap electronic alternative. You'll be putting printers out of work, but you're really not responsible for their jobs if you pay for an electronic copy. They can adapt or die too. You are, however, guilty of copyright infringement when you make your own copies, and that does put workers out of a job. Think about it. You saved some money that you could have taken a loan out to get, but the publishers, authors, printers, and distributors lost a sale not due to fair competition, but due to a crime which you committed.
Huh? Is this a philosophy of yours that has rules about how humans should and should not behave? Or how the marketing words should or should not behave? 'Cause it seems to me like marketing works on a large percentage of the population directly, influences nearly everyone whether they want it to or not, and that's just a fact. Facts happen, saying that marketing "shouldn't" work is like saying that gravity shouldn't work. It does, deal with it.
Words, BTW, are almost never "meaningless". We can disagree on the meaning, twist them, play with them, and even misuse them to trick people, but they do mean something; maybe just not what you'd like them to. One good thing about Apple using "Retina" may be that it can be used as a reference resolution to compare other devices to.
Take it for what it's worth, but I think that you're confusing Having A Hammer So I Think I'll Hammer Stuff and I'd Like That Table Router So I Could Cabinet-Make But It's Too Expensive So I Guess I'll Just Use My Hammer On These 2x4s Instead. People do the things they do with botnets because that's that they can do with them. I'm sure that a lot of herders would love to control Amazon's servers and be able to direct them against hardened targets like bank security with a chance of success.
FTFY
But to the majority of people in the world, these things matter, changing their opinion, world view, etc. So, since these things matter to the majority, they should have import to anybody with the sense to realize that what matters to most people should matter (in some way) to us all. See what I did there?
I'll go further. Anyone taking any public position at all should have to "submit"; including (especially) all law enforcement types. Heck, if the census-takers had all been DNA screened against the criminal database, I'd worry a bit less about the possibility of my family letting them into the house.
And let me tell you how glad I am that we can keep our conversation on such a civil level when disagreeing.
Making some reasonable effort to show respect isn't always bad, but always respecting everyone's views is simply not possible. For example, I cannot show complete respect for a radical Christians's views that all adulterers should be stoned to death without disrespecting another radical Christian's views that the old testament laws don't apply anymore and that stoning adulterers is wrong. Incompatible world views exist, it's simply our choice as to which one's we're going to upset with our activities. Heck, a PETA member might even argue that poking that bear will end well for the bear when it gets a man-sized meal, so go ahead.
Hey, anybody notice that a lot of people are going on about the people who post about "correlation is not causation"? I wonder if there's a reason that's happening or if it's just coincidence...
Not in emulation, in hardware. See other posts for Amiga details. The old Apple Quadra 610 had the option of a NuBus card with a fully functional x86 motherboard-equivalent on it. Ahh, yes, from EveryMac: "The Quadra 610 PC-Compatible shipped with a 25 MHz Intel 486SX processor card that can have a maximum of 32 MB of RAM dedicated to the DOS/Windows operating system." I remember people running Win 3.1 in a window at full speed 'within' Mac OS 7- waaaay faster than the virtualizers of the day... They were strange times, the '90's, and there were really weird expansion cards available. Anyone remember the Apple IIe card for the LCII?
Do you read the posts that you're replying to? I said that Gizmodo received stolen goods and was within their right to ask Apple for proof that it belonged to them. I didn't mention the douche who sold them the phone at all. It's pretty clear that he's in trouble for selling goods that he didn't have the right to sell. TFA was about the warrants for Chen's apartment as well as the seller's. So, did you read the article or my post? Or did you read them but just not understand them?
Look up "hyperbole".
I own an Apple laptop. If it was missing/stolen and someone handed it over to Apple just because it had the logo on it, I'd be pissed. Gizmodo may be guilty of receiving stolen property, but they knew that they were within their rights getting a positive assertion from Apple that it was their phone. Legally, it should have gone straight to the police (along with a FIFA request that they be informed of who claimed it so they could still write their story).
So, how do I get something defined as a trade secret so that I can sue people who photograph it? If it's a "secret", then how can a person possibly know beforehand that that they are committing a felony by photographing it? I mean, if the company was denying the existence of this product, how could anyone know that they were doing something wrong until Apple sent the letter stating that the device belonged to them. Once they did that, everyone handed the phone over. Heck, if there's a red-light photo of Grey using the phone in public, does that mean that the State of California is guilty of trade secret "violations"?
Except for the fact that we're discussing an unproven drug. If a drug company goes to the expense of proving something that's already a generic, then their competitors can produce it right away without having had the cost of running the trials. That doesn't make sense from a business/competitiveness standpoint. Nor was there a guarantee that this trial was going to pan out resulting in any usable drug at all, even a lower-profit one. Don't underestimate the gobs of money that are made on patentable drugs. It may be a crap shoot for the company to test a patentable drug, but the payoff of the few good bets really does pay off the bad ones and leave enough left over for some nice executive houses and company jets.
Insightful? Last I knew you were just as free as everyone else in the U.S. to write your representatives and have your voice added to the opinions being heard, and that's hardly news. That's the thing about the "Democracy" you righty whiners are always on about spreading across the world; when you're in the minority you still have to put up with the results, but you can organize and try to change the situation. You don't like something? Then do get a coalition together and take a few years to build a movement to change what you don't like! As for GP, perhaps his statement could be rephrased as 'we should have a say what it is used for'. It's not "tenuous reasoning", and it's damn well not "insightful", it's how we run our government and how we're setting up governments in the countries which we've taken over.
BTW, I love the way you pretend that it's a big secret that public money goes to NPR. It's only a secret to someone who's never heard their constant underwriting messages.
~Damn you and the GP! If we taught that objects (other than the stray meteor) don't do harm, it's the people who use them inappropriately, then we'd be teaching personal responsibility, rule of law, and how to get along without banning stupid shit for no reason! We can't have that!~
Really, weren't there already rules against vandalism? If that was enforced when the mess occured, and not prior to it, then kids might learn that they get in trouble for misusing objects. Other kids might look and say, "So, if I eat my candy and don't get it all over then it's ok, but if I use it to gum up the copy machine then I'll get in trouble" and learn how to get along in the world. All this girl learned is that rules are arbitrarily made up and enforced by those with power over her, so she may as well do whatever the hell she wants 'cause eventually someone is gonna kicker her in the teeth with a made up rule about something she'd least expect.
Idiotic? How about believing that there is any reason these machines were invented, sold to an unaware public, and deployed other than to make the manufacturer, their investors, and those whom the manufacturer pays off money. They're marketed as making us safer (an argument which I reject), and the TSA sometimes gets off on being the "big man with the gun", but those are side effects of a product who's sole purpose is to make it purveyors money.
Well, if my boss told me to break into someone's house, or even to look in the windows because they though that that someone had stolen equipment from work I'd say "sure, as soon as the police officer with the warrant gets here I'll be happy to help him!" If a crime hasn't occurred, then it's not worth activating a "feature" like this. If it has occurred, then it's worth getting the police involved. If it's in between, then it's time to call your insurance company and see if they'll pay the claim for the "stolen" equipment anyway. (Most times if you report it stolen and show the police report you'll get your money. It's not your job to track down the criminals or the equipment, it's the police's.)
To your second point, I know that common sense isn't that common, but really, unless there's a signed document from these kids parents allowing the camera to be turned on, I think that everyone involved should go to jail for at least a little while. It's illegal to film in someone's bedroom without their permission. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that. I know that we all love the stories about the person who used "back to my Mac" to take pictures of the criminal who took their laptop, but just wait until someone does that with a computer that's been stolen by a teenage girl and gets nailed for "creation of child porn" when they track their computer while she's dressing in the morning.
I was just about to mod this "funny" when I noticed the "informative" mod. I'm still laughing so hard at that that I'm all teared up.
Really, are these health professionals truly upset or is some journalist making a story? 3 hours of games is a huge reduction for most kids, let alone ones that would go to this camp. And they've got at least 8 hours for other activities...beavers beware!
LOL, you're obviously not in in the 'States. I freaking got a large post card yesterday from our local hospital to advertise how they're cutting down on paper waste and "going green". I kid you not. We have billboards, flier's, direct-mailings, radio and TV ads, location-aware internet ads, and some ads that I'm not remembering right now for hospitals and "health-groups". The Doctor's is not somewhere to go in the 'States to get diagnosed/treated, it's place that's sold to you as an experience; one that encourages you to go even if it's not needed. Most of the "Health Care Debate" over here isn't about the "haves" losing the care that they need, it's about us _maybe_ not being able to go into the Doctor's office for every hang-nail and splinter that they should just take care of themselves.
I know that when I got divorced the lawyer pointed out that one of the grounds to sue for divorce with cause was refusal of marital "rights". Granted, one night wouldn't have counted, but if you're denied for something like a year straight then you have a court case.
And you thought that you were just being funny. It's amazing what rights contract law can grant, and what obligations it can impose.