Cell phone stops exist every minute or so, we call them highway exists. Like there is a single exit in the United States that doesn't have a gas station, with parking spots?! In city traffic, we call them meters, parking spaces, or places of business, roughly every 10 seconds. If anything is so important that you really must impede traffic and pull over to respond, its called the fucking shoulder of the road. There is absolutely no reason to talk on your phone while in traffic (even if its just you and one car in the distance in New Mexico on the highway).
If I see you using a cell phone while driving, even at a red light, I will get out of my car, grab my baseball bat, shatter your window, and tell you to hang the phone up, because you should know better. I have had police officers witness me shattering windows and not arrest me, because I am in the right on this one. I am not the one driving recklessly, and your shattered window is a lot cheaper than the ticket you deserve.
You are the cult member. Responding with tons of quotes, run on half thoughts, and meaningless rhetoric.
We don't have a real free market (hence why we have an economic system), therefore you need to invest under the market rules and enforcement that in fact exists. No sense in forum spamming worthless crap when it won't change a damn thing.
By the way, there are no moral issues to my response, so you should have said that I was incorrect (which I was not), rather than wrong.
Inflation is slated for 3-6% annually, not 17%. This is only slightly elevated from historical trends. Not a big deal. Furthermore, Ford, Apple, and Microsoft are not banks, financial institutions, etc. They are not in competition with these types of organizations, and in fact, rely upon their existence for their own profitability. The failure of large financial groups means that ford, apple, and microsoft also take huge hits. Are you really of the belief that if AIG fails, I'm gonna buy a second truck instead of an investment portfolio?
Yes, having my 500k savings reduced 250k is much, much, much better than having it be worthless. Although in reality, since my portfolio is making more than inflation despite bailouts, its increasing in value, albeit at a slower rate than when it artificially was higher due to financial market flaws (like artificially low interest rates and inflation rates).
Yeah, its a shame that our federal government decided that keeping our national currency, which materially affects international currency, might be slightly more important than getting our national internet structure slightly faster yet in no way more useful than Russia.
Marked bank bills. Plainclothes police in banks/across the street. Multiple levels of authorization for cash removals from bank vaults. Unmarried bank managers. Wives with cell phones. Bank managers with conceal/carry permits. Security cameras in the bank parking lot of every bank in the US right after the first one of these attempts fails for other reasons.
Well, that took 2 minutes to think of. I'll let others respond with more.
The ability to install another OS is in the user's manual included with a new system. There really isn't a basis for claiming that any PS3 owner was unaware of the possibility. The fact that they had no interest in fully using every aspect of their console does not mean that they have no reason to demand a refund for lost functionality.
In perspective, if a mechanic I pay to wax my car (a continuous, time based upgrade to my hardware) claims that a new better wax will remove the functional ability to use cruise control, he has committed a tort even if I don't use cruise control because I live in the city. I suppose I have the option of buying another car of the same model so I can both use the shiny waxed version and the version with cruise control, but I bought one with the ability for both, and I shouldn't have to later purchase separate functional abilities. My prior knowledge of either car waxing and cruise control are completely irrelevant, because these items are common knowledge when it comes to cars.
Actually, as a PS3 owner who chooses to use the included OS, I am still angry at functionality that was included with purchase being removed. This affects the potential resale value. Or perhaps I want to play my old PS2 games without buying a PS2, since I sold mine when I bought a PS3 to offset the then $600 price tag. I'm sure the majority of complaints stem from actual issues that vary based on how people use their respective consoles.
The whole point of my participation on an internet forum is so when people say stupid or incorrect or wrong things (yet inexplicably believe that these things are not stupid or incorrect or wrong), I can interject and point out why those things are stupid or incorrect or wrong.
You're a total dick, man. You are precisely what's wrong with Slashdot commenters.
So, to recap, you said something that was factually incorrect, I corrected you, instead of you acknolwedging your failure, you say something even dumber, I point out why it was dumb and suggest actually reading and understanding a post before claiming that it doesn't say what it in fact directly says, and you react by partially quoting me and calling me names without basis.
I'm almost certain that you are the problem. I don't get into pointless arguments with people who respond with well thought out, reasoned responses that address the conversation in a manner that at least indicates that they have read the response(s).
I don't see the problem that you do because I understand the meaning of words. Annoy in the legal sense here refers to molestation or harm, not irritation. You are going to have to show intent and harm or any lawsuit for the criminal charge of harassment will be thrown out on its face (and as I pointed out, could be subject to counterclaim of harassment).
Its not particularly unnerving that it is possible to take legal action against harassment simply because someone harasses you. For one thing, if you take legal action against someone without good cause, we call that harassment. I'm fairly certain that if I am on the receiving end of such, I want to be able to take legal action. I don't understand why you find this terrifying.
It seems like in your response, you either didn't read or didn't understand my post (but I wouldn't put didn't read and couldn't understand if you had read past you, based on your post and your response).
I meant that it is more accurate in the way that only bad things can happen: the bus can run off the road and you'll have to start over.
Yes, that is directly what I said. This is nothing like actual driving, therefore it fails as a simulator.
Compare this to unlocking achievements, new tracks, upgrading your car, etc.
I did make the comparison here; in comparative to Desert bus, these types of things are better simulators of actual driving.
Oh, and also: please don't put words in my mouth, I'm not Jack Thompson and I didn't say shit about FPS's.
What?
I gave the example of FPS to show how illogical your viewpoint is. To be fair, I was with your thought process in OP until your last sentence, in which your entire post now become pointless and incorrect. Your accusation of me putting words in your mouth is absurd. If you had any concept of logic, you would have understood that I was not claiming that you find FPS boring; I was simply showing that if you had argued it, the same logical failure would also exist from your argument. I called you Jack Thompson to point out that your logic train was derailed before you posted, and your response to such further indicates that I am correct on this.
I really don't understand where you are coming from. You seem to disagree with me because I pointed why you were wrong.
Don't do this to other people on the internet.
The whole point of my participation on an internet forum is so when people say stupid or incorrect or wrong things (yet inexplicably believe that these things are not stupid or incorrect or wrong), I can interject and point out why those things are stupid or incorrect or wrong. I can assure you, if we had this conversation face to face, or through any other medium, the purpose and meaning of my responses would not change.
At this point, I need you to understand that you do not have a good concept of reading comprehension. Go back to 4th grade and start to figure this stuff out. Words have meanings, and you should not respond in a conversation without listening to what is said (especially in this type of medium, where what is said is in a written form, which you can read repeatedly in order to comprehend. You can even have people who are smarter than you take the time to explain it to you, but again, if you don't get it, don't respond).
I have often said that driving is the world's most boring video game. Get to your destination, while avoiding a multitude of hazards. Think about it: there is nothing positive that can happen during a drive, and the media keeps us relentlessly up-to-date on the negatives. Driving: "stay between the lines, stay between the lines, stay between the lines...*sigh*..." And if you don't pay attention for just one moment: tragedy. The famous video game Desert Bus is actually a more accurate simulation of driving than any Gran Turismo.
Jack Thompson, is that you?
Clearly, you have never played desert bus or Gran Turismo, nor have you actually driven a vehicle in real life. Driving is an immersive, 3d experience, and it really is quite dangerous if you stop paying attention while driving (so put your fucking cell phone, sandwich, and other distractions away until you are no longer driving). Desert certainly is boring, and the only rules are to stay between the lines and nothing positive can happen during a drive (which consists of 4 hour shifts of driving in the desert, with no other traffic and no real distractions to keep your mind on the road, which is nothing like actual driving. Gran turismo, on the other hand, includes tracks that exist in real life. Driving different types of vehicles will give you somewhat of an idea of how those vehicles handle, making adjustments to vehicle in the simulated shops will give you an idea of how those adjustments would affect an actual vehicle, and the physics engine, while not perfect, is much, much, much better than desert bus.
Are you of the opinion that first person shooters are boring? Here is your logical stream: First person shooters are boring because the only outcome is that you might get shot, just shoot the bad guy, just shoot the bad guy...sigh... and if you don't pay attention for one moment, tragedy. The famous video game area 51 is a more accurate first person shooter than call of duty.
By the way, the world's most boring videogame is not desert bus (it gets played with lots of amusing commentation) but rather Tail of the Sun.
If you had paid attention in driver's ed, you would have known to brake before you enter a corner and accelerate through. You also could learn this by watching NASCAR for five minutes in your entire life (or, since this is/., by having taken a basic intro to physics course and gone through a unit of how friction works).
It is quite likely that you learned how to drive from a source other than a video game, even if you were able to apply a real life lesson to a game that (sort of) follows real world physics.
They chose to smoke; I didn't. They don't have to either. They have to live with the consequences of being a smoker.
I am more than happy the fuckers have to go outside now. For the last 15 years, I couldn't go out and eat in a restaurant because of my asthma.
To paraphrase the old adage, your rights end where my nose begins. I'm not happy that it took the government* to ban smoking inside restaurants, etc, but I think a restaurant owner has the same responsibility to give smokers the boot outside as they do drunken, filthy, stinky vagrants. You can be either, and more power to you, but not in here.
*my state, at least, had a referendum and 70% voted to ban smoking. Not exactly anti-democratic.
You are the opposite of correct.
The adage is your rights end where mine begin, The nose is not part of the phrase or its meaning. The takeaway should be that if it is legal for me to smoke in the state, that you should not be able to stop me from doing so. You have the right to choose not to smoke, but you certainly do not have the right to claim that smokers can exist, but inside of restaurants, magically, they don't. Thats the same line of thought as 'you can be gay, but not in my church' or 'you can be homeless, but stay out of mcdonalds.' The concept is absurd.
This country used to not be retarded, and restaurants used to have smoking and non-smoking sections. The only reasonable complaint on this I can see is that discriminatory restaurant sectionalism should not occur, even if it happens to be separate but equal sectionalism. On the other hand, restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. If a restaurant wishes to not allow smoking, they have every right to. The problem occurs when state law prohibits the restaurant from allowing smokers inside. Passing a law that requires private businesses to not allow smokers inside is about as anti-democratic as it gets.
While I am guessing you don't actually know how your drinking water gets to you, I assure you that by definition, your water comes from a government regulated utility. On your mother's life, I promise you this is true. Also, your random capitalization does not add emphasis nor does it make your invalid points any less invalid. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi here, but this isn't 1990 and you aren't using AOL IM to be a l33t H4xor, and it was stupid back then too, so knock it off.
You have completely missed the purpose of my post. Furthermore the tambre of your response questions whether things I directly state are things that I have stated. (The purpose, by the way, was to point out that even if private industry provides alternatives, government segments already exist for that specific example and you already pay for them, so using a private toll road is costing you at least double for a service that you already have)
Although ambulance companies are currently corporate owned, there is no basis for assuming that this will remain true. The recent health care bill provides far too many reasons to believe that they will not, and under the assumption that this is true, you should expect rapid inflation in the dollar over the next few years as well. You can invest wisely, or you can banter over whether or not your ambulance is a federal employee despite the fact that it is a federal mandate (see cost of public schools and medicare over time for examples). I know which option I am taking.
What is absurd is that you think we agree on a false statement. The absurdity I was referring to was that people voluntarily choose to finance the stupidity of others in choice of locale (specifically when people have the option and the opportunity to live in safer areas and choose not to). I do not believe that individuals and non-governmental organizational interference actually helps in a crisis. If anything, it leads to more and larger crises over time.
Of course I won't have babies with you. You don't even understand what a utility is.
The world does not consist entirely of large cities. Many rural areas have nonprofit corporations that provide water, and volunteer-only firefighting squads - there is no government entity involved at all.
A volunteer only firefighting squad is subject to government interference from a localized form of government (how it can be run, specifically how liabilities are understood through its use, etc.). In order to be a non-profit organization, one must form an organization specifically to avoid taxation. The end result is that the non-profit organization, in order to avoid government interference, must do things specifically due to government interference that would otherwise occur (for example they must have an accountant review their books to prove that they have not made a profit and file such non-profit on a quarterly basis with a governmental entity).
If a corporation exists within a country that has government, governmental entities will be involved. To claim that anyone, anywhere does anything without governmental involvement is ridiculous.
My experience is that corporations don't hire new people if they don't have to, in order to provide higher returns for investors. R&D only occurs when one has competition. Opening more stores creates a depreciation, not a direct expense. Incurring expenses is much harder than you think.
A utility (government owned corp) provides your drinking water. Your toll roads are alternatives to government funded roads, which you can drive on based on your tax payments, whereas the toll road charges you every time you use it (it isn't that roads don't exist, its that you aren't willing to sit in traffic to use them). Thanks to the most recently passed health care bill, every ambulance will be paid for through government mandated health care insurance (not through personal choice or obligation), whether individuals who can pay for them or not will do so.
Governmental organizations respond to large disasters as much as they are legally obligated to, and nothing more, nor should they. Individuals and non-governmental organizations in the US pay for environmental disasters when people who live in hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami prone areas suffer such effects, regardless of whether or not these events occur in the US. This is absurd.
Out of curiosity, why don't we do this? Your first DWI should be a mulligan
No it should not. After you get a DWI, you should lose your license, immediately, and preferably permanently. If you get a DWI after you lose your license, you should at a bare minimum receive jail time.
Slashdot Mirror
Cell phone stops exist every minute or so, we call them highway exists. Like there is a single exit in the United States that doesn't have a gas station, with parking spots?! In city traffic, we call them meters, parking spaces, or places of business, roughly every 10 seconds. If anything is so important that you really must impede traffic and pull over to respond, its called the fucking shoulder of the road. There is absolutely no reason to talk on your phone while in traffic (even if its just you and one car in the distance in New Mexico on the highway).
If I see you using a cell phone while driving, even at a red light, I will get out of my car, grab my baseball bat, shatter your window, and tell you to hang the phone up, because you should know better. I have had police officers witness me shattering windows and not arrest me, because I am in the right on this one. I am not the one driving recklessly, and your shattered window is a lot cheaper than the ticket you deserve.
From my dictionary,
Bribe - anything given or serving to persuade or induce. (The children were given candy as a bribe to be good)
Seems like it is used properly.
Cult member?
You are the cult member. Responding with tons of quotes, run on half thoughts, and meaningless rhetoric.
We don't have a real free market (hence why we have an economic system), therefore you need to invest under the market rules and enforcement that in fact exists. No sense in forum spamming worthless crap when it won't change a damn thing.
By the way, there are no moral issues to my response, so you should have said that I was incorrect (which I was not), rather than wrong.
Incorrect.
Inflation is slated for 3-6% annually, not 17%. This is only slightly elevated from historical trends. Not a big deal. Furthermore, Ford, Apple, and Microsoft are not banks, financial institutions, etc. They are not in competition with these types of organizations, and in fact, rely upon their existence for their own profitability. The failure of large financial groups means that ford, apple, and microsoft also take huge hits. Are you really of the belief that if AIG fails, I'm gonna buy a second truck instead of an investment portfolio?
Yes, having my 500k savings reduced 250k is much, much, much better than having it be worthless. Although in reality, since my portfolio is making more than inflation despite bailouts, its increasing in value, albeit at a slower rate than when it artificially was higher due to financial market flaws (like artificially low interest rates and inflation rates).
So you want an agree/disagree button regarding moderation score? That just seems unecessary, considering that we already have meta-moderation...
Yes, this outcome is vastly preferable to collapse of an economic system.
Nice try though.
Yeah, its a shame that our federal government decided that keeping our national currency, which materially affects international currency, might be slightly more important than getting our national internet structure slightly faster yet in no way more useful than Russia.
So very many reasons this would never work.
Marked bank bills. Plainclothes police in banks/across the street. Multiple levels of authorization for cash removals from bank vaults. Unmarried bank managers. Wives with cell phones. Bank managers with conceal/carry permits. Security cameras in the bank parking lot of every bank in the US right after the first one of these attempts fails for other reasons.
Well, that took 2 minutes to think of. I'll let others respond with more.
I don't care if they do or not.
My point is that not knowing about it is irrelevant to the loss of software function.
The ability to install another OS is in the user's manual included with a new system. There really isn't a basis for claiming that any PS3 owner was unaware of the possibility. The fact that they had no interest in fully using every aspect of their console does not mean that they have no reason to demand a refund for lost functionality.
In perspective, if a mechanic I pay to wax my car (a continuous, time based upgrade to my hardware) claims that a new better wax will remove the functional ability to use cruise control, he has committed a tort even if I don't use cruise control because I live in the city. I suppose I have the option of buying another car of the same model so I can both use the shiny waxed version and the version with cruise control, but I bought one with the ability for both, and I shouldn't have to later purchase separate functional abilities. My prior knowledge of either car waxing and cruise control are completely irrelevant, because these items are common knowledge when it comes to cars.
Actually, as a PS3 owner who chooses to use the included OS, I am still angry at functionality that was included with purchase being removed. This affects the potential resale value. Or perhaps I want to play my old PS2 games without buying a PS2, since I sold mine when I bought a PS3 to offset the then $600 price tag. I'm sure the majority of complaints stem from actual issues that vary based on how people use their respective consoles.
The whole point of my participation on an internet forum is so when people say stupid or incorrect or wrong things (yet inexplicably believe that these things are not stupid or incorrect or wrong), I can interject and point out why those things are stupid or incorrect or wrong.
You're a total dick, man. You are precisely what's wrong with Slashdot commenters.
So, to recap, you said something that was factually incorrect, I corrected you, instead of you acknolwedging your failure, you say something even dumber, I point out why it was dumb and suggest actually reading and understanding a post before claiming that it doesn't say what it in fact directly says, and you react by partially quoting me and calling me names without basis.
I'm almost certain that you are the problem. I don't get into pointless arguments with people who respond with well thought out, reasoned responses that address the conversation in a manner that at least indicates that they have read the response(s).
I don't see the problem that you do because I understand the meaning of words. Annoy in the legal sense here refers to molestation or harm, not irritation. You are going to have to show intent and harm or any lawsuit for the criminal charge of harassment will be thrown out on its face (and as I pointed out, could be subject to counterclaim of harassment).
Its not particularly unnerving that it is possible to take legal action against harassment simply because someone harasses you. For one thing, if you take legal action against someone without good cause, we call that harassment. I'm fairly certain that if I am on the receiving end of such, I want to be able to take legal action. I don't understand why you find this terrifying.
It seems like in your response, you either didn't read or didn't understand my post (but I wouldn't put didn't read and couldn't understand if you had read past you, based on your post and your response).
I meant that it is more accurate in the way that only bad things can happen: the bus can run off the road and you'll have to start over.
Yes, that is directly what I said. This is nothing like actual driving, therefore it fails as a simulator.
Compare this to unlocking achievements, new tracks, upgrading your car, etc.
I did make the comparison here; in comparative to Desert bus, these types of things are better simulators of actual driving.
Oh, and also: please don't put words in my mouth, I'm not Jack Thompson and I didn't say shit about FPS's.
What?
I gave the example of FPS to show how illogical your viewpoint is. To be fair, I was with your thought process in OP until your last sentence, in which your entire post now become pointless and incorrect. Your accusation of me putting words in your mouth is absurd. If you had any concept of logic, you would have understood that I was not claiming that you find FPS boring; I was simply showing that if you had argued it, the same logical failure would also exist from your argument. I called you Jack Thompson to point out that your logic train was derailed before you posted, and your response to such further indicates that I am correct on this.
I really don't understand where you are coming from. You seem to disagree with me because I pointed why you were wrong.
Don't do this to other people on the internet.
The whole point of my participation on an internet forum is so when people say stupid or incorrect or wrong things (yet inexplicably believe that these things are not stupid or incorrect or wrong), I can interject and point out why those things are stupid or incorrect or wrong. I can assure you, if we had this conversation face to face, or through any other medium, the purpose and meaning of my responses would not change.
At this point, I need you to understand that you do not have a good concept of reading comprehension. Go back to 4th grade and start to figure this stuff out. Words have meanings, and you should not respond in a conversation without listening to what is said (especially in this type of medium, where what is said is in a written form, which you can read repeatedly in order to comprehend. You can even have people who are smarter than you take the time to explain it to you, but again, if you don't get it, don't respond).
I have often said that driving is the world's most boring video game. Get to your destination, while avoiding a multitude of hazards. Think about it: there is nothing positive that can happen during a drive, and the media keeps us relentlessly up-to-date on the negatives. Driving: "stay between the lines, stay between the lines, stay between the lines...*sigh*..." And if you don't pay attention for just one moment: tragedy. The famous video game Desert Bus is actually a more accurate simulation of driving than any Gran Turismo.
Jack Thompson, is that you?
Clearly, you have never played desert bus or Gran Turismo, nor have you actually driven a vehicle in real life. Driving is an immersive, 3d experience, and it really is quite dangerous if you stop paying attention while driving (so put your fucking cell phone, sandwich, and other distractions away until you are no longer driving). Desert certainly is boring, and the only rules are to stay between the lines and nothing positive can happen during a drive (which consists of 4 hour shifts of driving in the desert, with no other traffic and no real distractions to keep your mind on the road, which is nothing like actual driving. Gran turismo, on the other hand, includes tracks that exist in real life. Driving different types of vehicles will give you somewhat of an idea of how those vehicles handle, making adjustments to vehicle in the simulated shops will give you an idea of how those adjustments would affect an actual vehicle, and the physics engine, while not perfect, is much, much, much better than desert bus.
Are you of the opinion that first person shooters are boring? Here is your logical stream: First person shooters are boring because the only outcome is that you might get shot, just shoot the bad guy, just shoot the bad guy...sigh... and if you don't pay attention for one moment, tragedy. The famous video game area 51 is a more accurate first person shooter than call of duty.
By the way, the world's most boring videogame is not desert bus (it gets played with lots of amusing commentation) but rather Tail of the Sun.
Ok, you got lucky and didn't die.
If you had paid attention in driver's ed, you would have known to brake before you enter a corner and accelerate through. You also could learn this by watching NASCAR for five minutes in your entire life (or, since this is /., by having taken a basic intro to physics course and gone through a unit of how friction works).
It is quite likely that you learned how to drive from a source other than a video game, even if you were able to apply a real life lesson to a game that (sort of) follows real world physics.
They chose to smoke; I didn't. They don't have to either. They have to live with the consequences of being a smoker.
I am more than happy the fuckers have to go outside now. For the last 15 years, I couldn't go out and eat in a restaurant because of my asthma.
To paraphrase the old adage, your rights end where my nose begins. I'm not happy that it took the government* to ban smoking inside restaurants, etc, but I think a restaurant owner has the same responsibility to give smokers the boot outside as they do drunken, filthy, stinky vagrants. You can be either, and more power to you, but not in here.
*my state, at least, had a referendum and 70% voted to ban smoking. Not exactly anti-democratic.
You are the opposite of correct.
The adage is your rights end where mine begin, The nose is not part of the phrase or its meaning. The takeaway should be that if it is legal for me to smoke in the state, that you should not be able to stop me from doing so. You have the right to choose not to smoke, but you certainly do not have the right to claim that smokers can exist, but inside of restaurants, magically, they don't. Thats the same line of thought as 'you can be gay, but not in my church' or 'you can be homeless, but stay out of mcdonalds.' The concept is absurd.
This country used to not be retarded, and restaurants used to have smoking and non-smoking sections. The only reasonable complaint on this I can see is that discriminatory restaurant sectionalism should not occur, even if it happens to be separate but equal sectionalism. On the other hand, restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. If a restaurant wishes to not allow smoking, they have every right to. The problem occurs when state law prohibits the restaurant from allowing smokers inside. Passing a law that requires private businesses to not allow smokers inside is about as anti-democratic as it gets.
While I am guessing you don't actually know how your drinking water gets to you, I assure you that by definition, your water comes from a government regulated utility. On your mother's life, I promise you this is true. Also, your random capitalization does not add emphasis nor does it make your invalid points any less invalid. I don't mean to be a grammar nazi here, but this isn't 1990 and you aren't using AOL IM to be a l33t H4xor, and it was stupid back then too, so knock it off.
You have completely missed the purpose of my post. Furthermore the tambre of your response questions whether things I directly state are things that I have stated. (The purpose, by the way, was to point out that even if private industry provides alternatives, government segments already exist for that specific example and you already pay for them, so using a private toll road is costing you at least double for a service that you already have)
Although ambulance companies are currently corporate owned, there is no basis for assuming that this will remain true. The recent health care bill provides far too many reasons to believe that they will not, and under the assumption that this is true, you should expect rapid inflation in the dollar over the next few years as well. You can invest wisely, or you can banter over whether or not your ambulance is a federal employee despite the fact that it is a federal mandate (see cost of public schools and medicare over time for examples). I know which option I am taking.
What is absurd is that you think we agree on a false statement. The absurdity I was referring to was that people voluntarily choose to finance the stupidity of others in choice of locale (specifically when people have the option and the opportunity to live in safer areas and choose not to). I do not believe that individuals and non-governmental organizational interference actually helps in a crisis. If anything, it leads to more and larger crises over time.
Of course I won't have babies with you. You don't even understand what a utility is.
The world does not consist entirely of large cities. Many rural areas have nonprofit corporations that provide water, and volunteer-only firefighting squads - there is no government entity involved at all.
A volunteer only firefighting squad is subject to government interference from a localized form of government (how it can be run, specifically how liabilities are understood through its use, etc.). In order to be a non-profit organization, one must form an organization specifically to avoid taxation. The end result is that the non-profit organization, in order to avoid government interference, must do things specifically due to government interference that would otherwise occur (for example they must have an accountant review their books to prove that they have not made a profit and file such non-profit on a quarterly basis with a governmental entity).
If a corporation exists within a country that has government, governmental entities will be involved. To claim that anyone, anywhere does anything without governmental involvement is ridiculous.
But then how is little jimmy gonna know how tall the statue is on top of the building from 100 yards away.
He will look it up on wikidpedia or read the plaque in front of the building pointing it out.
My experience is that corporations don't hire new people if they don't have to, in order to provide higher returns for investors. R&D only occurs when one has competition. Opening more stores creates a depreciation, not a direct expense. Incurring expenses is much harder than you think.
A utility (government owned corp) provides your drinking water. Your toll roads are alternatives to government funded roads, which you can drive on based on your tax payments, whereas the toll road charges you every time you use it (it isn't that roads don't exist, its that you aren't willing to sit in traffic to use them). Thanks to the most recently passed health care bill, every ambulance will be paid for through government mandated health care insurance (not through personal choice or obligation), whether individuals who can pay for them or not will do so.
Governmental organizations respond to large disasters as much as they are legally obligated to, and nothing more, nor should they. Individuals and non-governmental organizations in the US pay for environmental disasters when people who live in hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami prone areas suffer such effects, regardless of whether or not these events occur in the US. This is absurd.
There, FTFY, dumbass.
Out of curiosity, why don't we do this? Your first DWI should be a mulligan
No it should not. After you get a DWI, you should lose your license, immediately, and preferably permanently. If you get a DWI after you lose your license, you should at a bare minimum receive jail time.
The article includes a video of a dog on a trampoline.
Happy April 1st, dumb-asses.