Auto... insurance are now mandatory by force of law.
Not true, as I said in another reply.
At least for CA:
What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?
Motor vehicle liability insurance policy. Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV. DMV-issued self-insurance certificate. Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.
One can draw an analogy between this and supermarket club cards, where you *can* buy groceries without one, but, it is 25% more expensive.
...and I love the supermarket cards. Safeway has even gone one further beyond the weekly deals to have 'personalized' deals. Most weeks, I get as low or lower than the every-couple-of-weeks specials *on the things I wanted to buy anyway*. (Note, I didn't say "I would have bought anyway", since for many things, I used to wait for the every-couple-of-weeks sales and stock up then.) But now I usually don't have to stock up as much, and as I said, it's even better prices on many of the things I regularly get.
(At least in CA, you can have one of these types instead of standard insurance: Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV, DMV-issued self-insurance certificate, Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.)
There is no effective difference between the two. There is a rate for people with the monitoring and a rate for people without it, and the latter is higher. The only difference is what you call the "default."
Yes, and that's a difference. Which one is the default makes people who don't care (the majority) more likely to do the default one.
(Very similarly, we give "time off for good behavior" for prison. That's awful.. Good behavior should be the default, they should be able to add time, with some kind of maximum unless a new crime is committed (in prison), for bad behavior.)
would it be worth someone's time to buy some of these unwanted out-of-the-way buildings and then fund (possibly fully) the construction of a line and station covering that area?
I have no idea if this is true for commercial buildings too, but there was a freakonomics podcast episode (2/26/2014 "Why are Japanese homes disposable?") that described that homes aren't built to be long lasting in Japan. Would definitely be worth researching before trying to do this.
I have no idea what you're talking about. My argument is that if people who believe an invisible man in the sky can refuse to pay for others getting their jollies, why can't atheists?
(Yes, I think in general people should pay for their own health care --- or their own insurance. Yes, insurance is "evening out the payments", but I'm talking about doing it willingly. BTW, both of the major presidential candidates were for at least some mandated health care, so I am not choosing political sides here.)
OK, then why can't I be a "closely knit ownership structure" (I did already hear that part today, btw) in the "Church of Money", and my church believes I shouldn't have to pay for things people can pay for themselves?
My attorney is the lead partner of probably the most succesful firm in Portland, OR and he disagrees with you. Under no circumstances should you trust a cop, EVEN if you are innocent, words directly from him to me. That means no talking, etc. That doesn't mean you have to be a complete arse, but you're being disingenious by suggesting most cops are decent folks, they are not, and even the ones that are are institutionalized into sticking up for the scumbags.
Emphasis mine. Wait, do you mean the cops or the lawyers?
e.g. Mike Garagos sounds like a great guy when he's on Adam Carolla's podcast. But the actual lawyerly things he does are IMHO scumbaggy, like a lot of other lawyers (all of the OJ defense lawyers).
OK, I didn't mean "let them" in terms of literally saying ok or giving body language to mean the same thing... but basically not protesting since you "knew" (wrongly apparently) it would be inadmissible..
I agree with getting rid of the subsidy (and all other subsidies, even ones I like), but why tax it any more than sugar? Are you one of those who have unscientific beliefs that corn syrup is worse than any other sugar?
I don't like the idea of bans like this in theory. In reality, because of things like mandated health care (and don't get me wrong, Romney was all for that in his home state too), *I* am paying for *your* poor choices.
(BTW, I eat a lot of junk food too.. You shouldn't be paying for me either.)
But if you "get continues for free", one will just keep hitting continue over and over, finish the game, and likely have less enjoyment than having to try over and over to eventually finish the game.. That less enjoyment would IMHO make them less likely in the long run to buy the company's other products.
Continues for free essentially means infinite lives.. Is a game fun with infinite lives? (Unless it was designed that way -- i.e. you don't die -- usually no..)
Did I ever say no regulation? No, I think things like pollution regulations are in general very good (I only say "in general" since there probably times when they've been taken too far -- using the Clean Air Act for CO2 is NOT one of them).
I think I'm generally far more for copyright than most of the (seemingly pro-piracy) posters on slashdot.
OK, I didn't know the term "deadweight loss" before, and I can see how that can cause problems.. I still don't think it should necessarily be regulated in "normal" market conditions. (I think de facto government sanctioned monopolies, e.g. cable companies or things that use limited spectrum, should be regulated MORE than they are now.)
The slave trade obviously violates the rights of the slaves. I think most people ignore the mortgage *recipients* who fraudulently signed mortgages they weren't qualified for (stated too high of an income, etc.) and were unable to pay, thus being unable to pay the mortgage. (I think the companies that made the fraudulent mortgages, and sold the derivatives while betting against them were wrong too.)
The other two examples, however.. even if I don't personally agree with them, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think those are perfect examples of good free market. Someone should be able to sell something they make for whatever they want.
Re:"Undead" doesn't mean vibrant, though.
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Python can do everything Perl can do, but with a way cleaner syntax.
If only I could turn off indentation==scope. I would pay $20 for this ability (to work in every interpreter, not some special one off interpreter just for me).
Even *with* that limitation (and yes, I know a million people will respond saying it's oh so great and I just don't get it), I still think Python is pretty decent.. Though it seems to have (seemingly) superfluous colons in a few places, which reminds me of Pascal or BASIC.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true, as I said in another reply.
At least for CA:
What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?
Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.
Source: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs%2Fb...
Do you drive a car? You *likely* have insurance.
(At least in CA, you can have one of these types instead of standard insurance: Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV, DMV-issued self-insurance certificate, Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.)
Yes, and that's a difference. Which one is the default makes people who don't care (the majority) more likely to do the default one.
(Very similarly, we give "time off for good behavior" for prison. That's awful.. Good behavior should be the default, they should be able to add time, with some kind of maximum unless a new crime is committed (in prison), for bad behavior.)
Kind of ironic, since the story involves California, which has Prop 13.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
It wasn't really reversed. They made the "male" version all genders, but still have all female competitions.
They should just have all open events. (They also have female poker tournaments, and every once in a while, a guy wears a dress and enters it.)
No, it is not about the home VALUES, but literally the building quality and how long they should last.
I mean, I know a poorer constructed building have a lower value, but that's a consequence, not the subject.
Again, I have no idea if this shoddy workmanship applies to commercial buildings.
I have no idea if this is true for commercial buildings too, but there was a freakonomics podcast episode (2/26/2014 "Why are Japanese homes disposable?") that described that homes aren't built to be long lasting in Japan. Would definitely be worth researching before trying to do this.
I have no idea what you're talking about. My argument is that if people who believe an invisible man in the sky can refuse to pay for others getting their jollies, why can't atheists?
(Yes, I think in general people should pay for their own health care --- or their own insurance. Yes, insurance is "evening out the payments", but I'm talking about doing it willingly. BTW, both of the major presidential candidates were for at least some mandated health care, so I am not choosing political sides here.)
BTW, I feel the same thing about viagra, which IIRC, insurance companies pay for too.
OK, then why can't I be a "closely knit ownership structure" (I did already hear that part today, btw) in the "Church of Money", and my church believes I shouldn't have to pay for things people can pay for themselves?
So I hope that a business can refuse to pay for it even without having to pretend to believe in an invisible man in the sky..
If not, I hope one of them sues, because the government is then preferring one religion over another.
(I think this, and many other things, should be paid for by the person themselves...)
Funny that I get one troll and one insightful comment in the same thread.. Plus, I'm registered R.
Emphasis mine. Wait, do you mean the cops or the lawyers?
e.g. Mike Garagos sounds like a great guy when he's on Adam Carolla's podcast. But the actual lawyerly things he does are IMHO scumbaggy, like a lot of other lawyers (all of the OJ defense lawyers).
OK, I didn't mean "let them" in terms of literally saying ok or giving body language to mean the same thing... but basically not protesting since you "knew" (wrongly apparently) it would be inadmissible..
But with your other answer, I will RTFA.
I didn't RTFA, but wouldn't the tricky/slimy answer be "let them search it, so then all of the evidence gets thrown out"?
I agree with getting rid of the subsidy (and all other subsidies, even ones I like), but why tax it any more than sugar? Are you one of those who have unscientific beliefs that corn syrup is worse than any other sugar?
Inductive charging wastes power. Don't you care about the earth?
I don't get why Republicans made up death panels, since that should be a Republican idea to limit mandated health care!
I don't like the idea of bans like this in theory. In reality, because of things like mandated health care (and don't get me wrong, Romney was all for that in his home state too), *I* am paying for *your* poor choices.
(BTW, I eat a lot of junk food too.. You shouldn't be paying for me either.)
But if you "get continues for free", one will just keep hitting continue over and over, finish the game, and likely have less enjoyment than having to try over and over to eventually finish the game.. That less enjoyment would IMHO make them less likely in the long run to buy the company's other products.
Continues for free essentially means infinite lives.. Is a game fun with infinite lives? (Unless it was designed that way -- i.e. you don't die -- usually no..)
Did I ever say no regulation? No, I think things like pollution regulations are in general very good (I only say "in general" since there probably times when they've been taken too far -- using the Clean Air Act for CO2 is NOT one of them).
I think I'm generally far more for copyright than most of the (seemingly pro-piracy) posters on slashdot.
OK, I didn't know the term "deadweight loss" before, and I can see how that can cause problems.. I still don't think it should necessarily be regulated in "normal" market conditions. (I think de facto government sanctioned monopolies, e.g. cable companies or things that use limited spectrum, should be regulated MORE than they are now.)
The slave trade obviously violates the rights of the slaves. I think most people ignore the mortgage *recipients* who fraudulently signed mortgages they weren't qualified for (stated too high of an income, etc.) and were unable to pay, thus being unable to pay the mortgage. (I think the companies that made the fraudulent mortgages, and sold the derivatives while betting against them were wrong too.)
The other two examples, however.. even if I don't personally agree with them, why shouldn't they be allowed? I think those are perfect examples of good free market. Someone should be able to sell something they make for whatever they want.
If only I could turn off indentation==scope. I would pay $20 for this ability (to work in every interpreter, not some special one off interpreter just for me).
Even *with* that limitation (and yes, I know a million people will respond saying it's oh so great and I just don't get it), I still think Python is pretty decent.. Though it seems to have (seemingly) superfluous colons in a few places, which reminds me of Pascal or BASIC.
Why is Tesla selling as many cars as it can make, and out-doing the existing big business carmakers at Tesla's type of car?