So basically you are willing to relinquish all your rights to software (and eventually hardware) so that there can still be "price discrimination"? Are you thinking that this is the reason the software companies like this case so that they can price discriminate?
That is another major part of the problem: there are people who as the consumer think too narrowly. Like this judge, it doesn't seem you fully understand the extending ramifications of this decision that affects YOUR rights as a consumer.
Software companies are not trying to do all this so they can price discriminate. They are doing this because of GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. This is about people who have millions and in some cases billions of dollars who aren't happy with the millions or billions of dollars they have and are now trying to get the legal system to limit our rights as a consumer so they can make MORE MONEY.
WAKE UP. Our freedoms, liberties and rights as consumers and as citizens in this country are being taken away to appease the INSATIABLE GREED of these corporate pinheads.
No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.
DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.
It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.
Lol... I see what you did there. The problem people keep forgetting is that the film industry goes after anyone they THINK is pirating their shit. They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.
It wasn't sarcastic. That is the direction we are heading and it is outrageous for them to implement such a plan at a school. Again, read my original post.
First, clearly you did not read my comment. We are talking about the food that the cafeteria serves the children. They should be feeding them what they are supposed to be eating ANYWAY. Why not just ship the schools what they are allowed to serve?
Secondly, my kids won't be eating what the school serves them, they will be eating what I prepare for them for their lunches. Because as a responsible adult, I will take responsibility for my own children rather than depending on the school to feed my children healthy foods.
1984 here we come! This is absolutely outrageous. They say it is for ensuring that what the school feeds the kids comply with sate laws. My question is that is this statement implying that the students MAY receive meals that go against these new laws? Wouldn't the better and less intrusive way to ensure the food served is "nutritious" is to only ship certain foods to the schools to serve? That sounds a whole lot less expensive than setting up an electronic system that DOES track what each individual student eats.
I really hate that hackers are blamed for every crime involving a computer. At least so it seems. We are talking less than 5% of all hackers do what they do for destruction or selfish means. I definitely will not promote Norton's products now. HACKING IS NOT A CRIME.
Well I am sorry you see it that way. You are only fooling yourself. Your concept of America is NOT how it was set up to be. The federal government was never meant to have as much power as it does. Your willingness to just accept it for what it is shows your complete lack of education of the principles and set of checks and balances our government was founded on.
Nice how you ignored a whole other section to what I said.
Also, I never aligned myself with the left or the right and I am certainly not anti-american. I am anti-socialism.
So basically you made all too known that you don't mind if the government forces you to buy healthcare or not cause it's "essential". Granted, it may be, but that still does NOT justify it being forced down our throats.
You clearly only watch CNN, which btw is just as unreliable a news source as Fox News. The two are identical to each other except for the obvious fact that they stand on either side of the two-party spectrum.
If we continue to grant the federal government more power, the closer we will get to a totalitarian state. Sad to see that someone who appears to be so intelligent could be so easily fooled and brainwashed into believing the rhetoric simply because it satisfies your needs.
You also imply that you support American ideals, well, forcing your citizens to do something against their will is not an American ideal. So congratulations you are your own contradiction.
Both parties need to go away. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are doing anything to truly help us. They both are only giving the illusion of trying to help. The sooner more people get over themselves and realize this, the better chance we have to remain free.
You should really read more rather than blinding believing what your TV tells you.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
If by 'quite a large number', you mean 'about a third', sure.
Of course, they're paying 15% more or so for said insurance compared to large companies.
My point is that they are out there.
So let's break this down. Did she have insurance at the time?
Was it employee based, or did she have her own insurance.
Or was she uninsurable because of some heart defect?
She had insurance, but it wouldn't cover the cost. The cancer institute only deferred it until she was done with treatment. She is more difficult to insure because she has lupus.
You've apparently mistaken my statement I can't get insurance for some sort of sob story, and thus think you should top it with some other sob story. I am not asking for sympathy, or a handout, I'm POINTING OUT I CAN'T GET INSURANCE.
Or, at least, that was the story. Luckily, now, in 2014, I'll be able to buy insurance myself, thanks to the mostly teethless 'reform' that was just passed
Yet you are giving a sob story. I understand you can't get insurance, but now in 2014 you will, but at what cost?
You say, "I'll be able to buy insurance myself" as if you will have a choice. You will be forced to buy healthcare whether you can afford it or not.
If you still can't afford it and don't buy it, you will be fined.
So you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of choice for yourself and for the rest of the country so you can "guarantee" yourself to get healthcare; when you don't really know whether or not you will be able to afford it come 2014. Prices haven't been announced.
Playing devil's advocate, say come 2014 you can't afford to get insurance? Would you just say, "well, it was worth a shot supporting this."? Or would you feel regret?
Or, let's now say that it works. Flawlessly. Great, right? Still don't have a choice in it. Which you may not care about. Certainly doesn't seem like you do. But you think it will stop at the health insurance? No.
What will happen is everybody will have all this faith and belief in the government again. They don't have to worry about healthcare. But wait, we still have terrorism, global warming, the war, crime, the economy. And they have convinced us that these are "national security" risks.
What will happen is the people will easily turn over the solution to the government on those issues as well. And what we'll get is the end of net neutrality and anonymity online. If you don't do anything bad online thats a small price to pay, right? But what comes from that loss of privacy? Justification to abolish warrants.
Justification to ignore the 1st amendment by shutting down anti-liberal and anti-global warming blogs. Which, btw, the Obama administration has already tried but failed. But not if they can get you afraid of it enough to abolish the 1st amendment.
What will happen is we will get to a point not that different from the imagining of 1984.
Times are scary. Who wouldn't be scared? War, terror, disease. There are a myriad of problems, but they are being conspired to corrupt our reason and rob us of our common sense. Fear is getting the best of us, and in our panic we are turning to our federal government. They are promising us security, they are promising us peace, and and all they demand in return is our silent, obedient consent.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
First, I most certainly do not represent an entire political party. So to imply as such is just silly.
Second, I never once made any distinction between small or large business being "reputable". I absolutely support small businesses.
It is also foolish and naive to assume that no small business is able to provide health care for their employees. There most certainly are small businesses that can; and quite a large number of them.
Finally, I never said anything about "wage slaves". Everyone's situation is different and they each require their own unique steps to get a solution.
P.S.
None of us are able to control the unexpected things in life. Again, it comes to the strength of character and motivation of the individual to weather difficult times.
My sister was diagnosed with cervical and uterine cancer at 29. She had to have a hysterectomy and had to do 4 months of chemotherapy. This happened while she was studying to get her Masters Degree in psychology.
The university offered her everything they could to put her mind at ease about focusing solely on her treatment. She would obviously not get her Masters until a later date, but they wouldn't penalize her in anyway. She stuck with it, and successfully defended her Masters on time and is continuing on to her PhD.
One final thought, everyone dies at one point or another. No one knows when that day will be or how it will happen, nor can we control it. Be happy for what you have and the life you have lived. A lot of people never even make it to my age.
Yeah, us crazy people with congenital heart defects, who cannot buy insurance on the market at all, should have to find some company that provides health insurance (Assuming any of those still exist) and work for them the rest of our lives.
Pretty much any reputable company provides some level of health insurance. I am 26-years old making 15 an hour. How the hell would I afford health insurance if the company I worked for didn't cover a vast majority of the cost? Plain and simple: I wouldn't.
We all do what we have to do in order to survive. I am sorry that you have a heart condition, I really am. But perhaps instead of using it as a crutch or an excuse to get other people to take care of you, you should use it as motivation to better yourself and your situation. Would show that you have a strong character and self-motivation.
No offense, but right now you sound like someone who expects the world to take care of you because of something neither them nor you can control.
Before healthcare reform conservatives/right wingers were bitching and moaning about "poor/cheap/unemployed/lazy" uninsured people bringing down the system and raising costs for insured citizens because they can always get healthcare, insured or not. This bill forces them to get insurance.
If complaining right wingers really want to fix the problem, they should propose a law banning all healthcare for uninsured citizens who can't pay out of pocket. See how well that goes over.
Well that's why conservatives don't like it, because whether you are "poor/cheap/unemployed/lazy" or not doesn't mean the government should be forcing you to buy a product or service. Which is what they are doing. We are a FREE nation and we have the right of freedom of choice.
If the decisions an individual makes over the course of their lives leads them to a state where they are poor, unemployed and without health insurance, that's THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT and it's not my job or my responsibility to provide for them. If I choose to do so on my own, then that is my decision. But I should have the choice.
The other misconception is that "10,000 churches" represents a "huge majority" of Christians world wide. Well over a billion people on earth follow the Christian religion. Even if every church out of that 10,000 had 300 people in their congregation, that's only 3 million people who support their views. For the sake of simplicity, say there is only a billion Christians in the world.
3,000,000/1,000,000,000 = 0.003%. Hardly a "huge majority"
Your stamp statement does not parallel what I said about a belief in nothing.
belief - as defined on dictionary.com
belief
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
atheism:
atheism
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The amount of people that do it means nothing. They are still twisting and misinterpreting their beliefs to justify it. I will reiterate, neither the Christian nor Islam religions condone killing people in the name of God or Allah. 99% of the people in both religions could be out killing people in the name of God or Allah. All that means is that 99% of the people in both religions have gone completely against the moral standards their religions require.
Also forgot to remind you that there are twisted people of all beliefs (the belief in nothing is still a belief). Just because Pol Pot and Stalin didn't "kill in the name of atheism" doesn't mean that others haven't and certainly doesn't mean that Pol Pot and Stalin are "better" than people who kill in the name of their deity. It's still senseless killing and they are equally bad.
The belief in a power that takes them above the law of man. by it's very nature, means people will feel anything they do in their gods name is good and morally correct thing to do.
Belief in a higher power is bad, horrible and destructive. Whether the higher power is a God, or an unquestioning faith in the government.
Then these people do not truly follow their religions. The people that kill in the name of their god are extremists in their religion and do not and should not be the staple that we base our opinions of the general people of those religions. Neither Christianity nor Islam condone killing people in the name of God or Allah. The original person is correct.
People do bad things because it's a part of their nature, not because they believe in a higher power.
I did forget that one. Lol. I was not in anyway trying to imply that DESCHALL was the first distributed computer discovery. It probably isn't, but it came before this pulsar project so there is no way the pulsar project is the first.:)
Prior to this, I only knew of two distributed computing projects, SETI and DESCHALL. DESCHALL was an effort in the mid 90's to prove to the government that their Data Encryption Standard (DES) was not a secure encryption type, and it was successful in 1996. 14 years before this event.
I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless. Since when is being these things considered to be abnormal? He should be honored and respected for his actions, not called abnormal.
Just because there are other options that are not as good as Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T doesn't automatically make those three premium services. Those are the STANDARD that other companies should try to emulate.
Let me put it this way. Ferrari cars are (supposedly) beyond standard cars in quality, performance, luxury, etc. They are also rare, so all this combined means they are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. In reality, what you are paying for is a name. They are still just a car that can be totaled, they aren't some super safe vehicles, they still get shitty gas mileage, and they still have to be maintained. Personally, anyone who actually pays $400,000 for a car (Ferrari or not) is delusional. The ONLY thing that makes them worth that much is their rarity.
Verizon, Sprint, AT&T ARE the standard for phone service. They are not rare, they still only provide phone service. People who are willing to pay $100+ a month for cell service (that's not even unlimited minutes) are crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
I support measures to increase privacy, but not government enforcement or government decided rules. We need SMALLER federal government, not bigger.
So basically you are willing to relinquish all your rights to software (and eventually hardware) so that there can still be "price discrimination"? Are you thinking that this is the reason the software companies like this case so that they can price discriminate?
That is another major part of the problem: there are people who as the consumer think too narrowly. Like this judge, it doesn't seem you fully understand the extending ramifications of this decision that affects YOUR rights as a consumer.
Software companies are not trying to do all this so they can price discriminate. They are doing this because of GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. This is about people who have millions and in some cases billions of dollars who aren't happy with the millions or billions of dollars they have and are now trying to get the legal system to limit our rights as a consumer so they can make MORE MONEY.
WAKE UP. Our freedoms, liberties and rights as consumers and as citizens in this country are being taken away to appease the INSATIABLE GREED of these corporate pinheads.
No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.
DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.
It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.
Lol... I see what you did there. The problem people keep forgetting is that the film industry goes after anyone they THINK is pirating their shit. They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.
It wasn't sarcastic. That is the direction we are heading and it is outrageous for them to implement such a plan at a school. Again, read my original post.
First, clearly you did not read my comment. We are talking about the food that the cafeteria serves the children. They should be feeding them what they are supposed to be eating ANYWAY. Why not just ship the schools what they are allowed to serve?
Secondly, my kids won't be eating what the school serves them, they will be eating what I prepare for them for their lunches. Because as a responsible adult, I will take responsibility for my own children rather than depending on the school to feed my children healthy foods.
1984 here we come! This is absolutely outrageous. They say it is for ensuring that what the school feeds the kids comply with sate laws. My question is that is this statement implying that the students MAY receive meals that go against these new laws? Wouldn't the better and less intrusive way to ensure the food served is "nutritious" is to only ship certain foods to the schools to serve? That sounds a whole lot less expensive than setting up an electronic system that DOES track what each individual student eats.
I 100% agree with you, but unfortunately Component is going away come Dec 31st. http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/02/19/1936209/2010-mdash-the-Year-AACS-and-HDMI-Kill-Off-HD-Component-Video
I really hate that hackers are blamed for every crime involving a computer. At least so it seems. We are talking less than 5% of all hackers do what they do for destruction or selfish means. I definitely will not promote Norton's products now. HACKING IS NOT A CRIME.
Well I am sorry you see it that way. You are only fooling yourself. Your concept of America is NOT how it was set up to be. The federal government was never meant to have as much power as it does. Your willingness to just accept it for what it is shows your complete lack of education of the principles and set of checks and balances our government was founded on.
I pity your ignorance.
Nice how you ignored a whole other section to what I said.
Also, I never aligned myself with the left or the right and I am certainly not anti-american. I am anti-socialism.
So basically you made all too known that you don't mind if the government forces you to buy healthcare or not cause it's "essential". Granted, it may be, but that still does NOT justify it being forced down our throats.
You clearly only watch CNN, which btw is just as unreliable a news source as Fox News. The two are identical to each other except for the obvious fact that they stand on either side of the two-party spectrum.
If we continue to grant the federal government more power, the closer we will get to a totalitarian state. Sad to see that someone who appears to be so intelligent could be so easily fooled and brainwashed into believing the rhetoric simply because it satisfies your needs.
You also imply that you support American ideals, well, forcing your citizens to do something against their will is not an American ideal. So congratulations you are your own contradiction.
Both parties need to go away. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are doing anything to truly help us. They both are only giving the illusion of trying to help. The sooner more people get over themselves and realize this, the better chance we have to remain free.
You should really read more rather than blinding believing what your TV tells you.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
If by 'quite a large number', you mean 'about a third', sure.
Of course, they're paying 15% more or so for said insurance compared to large companies.
My point is that they are out there.
So let's break this down. Did she have insurance at the time?
Was it employee based, or did she have her own insurance.
Or was she uninsurable because of some heart defect?
She had insurance, but it wouldn't cover the cost. The cancer institute only deferred it until she was done with treatment. She is more difficult to insure because she has lupus.
You've apparently mistaken my statement I can't get insurance for some sort of sob story, and thus think you should top it with some other sob story. I am not asking for sympathy, or a handout, I'm POINTING OUT I CAN'T GET INSURANCE.
Or, at least, that was the story. Luckily, now, in 2014, I'll be able to buy insurance myself, thanks to the mostly teethless 'reform' that was just passed
Yet you are giving a sob story. I understand you can't get insurance, but now in 2014 you will, but at what cost?
You say, "I'll be able to buy insurance myself" as if you will have a choice. You will be forced to buy healthcare whether you can afford it or not.
If you still can't afford it and don't buy it, you will be fined.
So you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of choice for yourself and for the rest of the country so you can "guarantee" yourself to get healthcare; when you don't really know whether or not you will be able to afford it come 2014. Prices haven't been announced.
Playing devil's advocate, say come 2014 you can't afford to get insurance? Would you just say, "well, it was worth a shot supporting this."? Or would you feel regret?
Or, let's now say that it works. Flawlessly. Great, right? Still don't have a choice in it. Which you may not care about. Certainly doesn't seem like you do. But you think it will stop at the health insurance? No.
What will happen is everybody will have all this faith and belief in the government again. They don't have to worry about healthcare. But wait, we still have terrorism, global warming, the war, crime, the economy. And they have convinced us that these are "national security" risks.
What will happen is the people will easily turn over the solution to the government on those issues as well. And what we'll get is the end of net neutrality and anonymity online. If you don't do anything bad online thats a small price to pay, right? But what comes from that loss of privacy? Justification to abolish warrants.
Justification to ignore the 1st amendment by shutting down anti-liberal and anti-global warming blogs. Which, btw, the Obama administration has already tried but failed. But not if they can get you afraid of it enough to abolish the 1st amendment.
What will happen is we will get to a point not that different from the imagining of 1984.
Times are scary. Who wouldn't be scared? War, terror, disease. There are a myriad of problems, but they are being conspired to corrupt our reason and rob us of our common sense. Fear is getting the best of us, and in our panic we are turning to our federal government. They are promising us security, they are promising us peace, and and all they demand in return is our silent, obedient consent.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin
A few things.
First, I most certainly do not represent an entire political party. So to imply as such is just silly.
Second, I never once made any distinction between small or large business being "reputable". I absolutely support small businesses.
It is also foolish and naive to assume that no small business is able to provide health care for their employees. There most certainly are small businesses that can; and quite a large number of them.
Finally, I never said anything about "wage slaves". Everyone's situation is different and they each require their own unique steps to get a solution.
P.S.
None of us are able to control the unexpected things in life. Again, it comes to the strength of character and motivation of the individual to weather difficult times.
My sister was diagnosed with cervical and uterine cancer at 29. She had to have a hysterectomy and had to do 4 months of chemotherapy. This happened while she was studying to get her Masters Degree in psychology.
The university offered her everything they could to put her mind at ease about focusing solely on her treatment. She would obviously not get her Masters until a later date, but they wouldn't penalize her in anyway. She stuck with it, and successfully defended her Masters on time and is continuing on to her PhD.
One final thought, everyone dies at one point or another. No one knows when that day will be or how it will happen, nor can we control it. Be happy for what you have and the life you have lived. A lot of people never even make it to my age.
Yeah, us crazy people with congenital heart defects, who cannot buy insurance on the market at all, should have to find some company that provides health insurance (Assuming any of those still exist) and work for them the rest of our lives.
Pretty much any reputable company provides some level of health insurance. I am 26-years old making 15 an hour. How the hell would I afford health insurance if the company I worked for didn't cover a vast majority of the cost? Plain and simple: I wouldn't.
We all do what we have to do in order to survive. I am sorry that you have a heart condition, I really am. But perhaps instead of using it as a crutch or an excuse to get other people to take care of you, you should use it as motivation to better yourself and your situation. Would show that you have a strong character and self-motivation.
No offense, but right now you sound like someone who expects the world to take care of you because of something neither them nor you can control.
Before healthcare reform conservatives/right wingers were bitching and moaning about "poor/cheap/unemployed/lazy" uninsured people bringing down the system and raising costs for insured citizens because they can always get healthcare, insured or not. This bill forces them to get insurance.
If complaining right wingers really want to fix the problem, they should propose a law banning all healthcare for uninsured citizens who can't pay out of pocket. See how well that goes over.
Well that's why conservatives don't like it, because whether you are "poor/cheap/unemployed/lazy" or not doesn't mean the government should be forcing you to buy a product or service. Which is what they are doing. We are a FREE nation and we have the right of freedom of choice.
If the decisions an individual makes over the course of their lives leads them to a state where they are poor, unemployed and without health insurance, that's THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT and it's not my job or my responsibility to provide for them. If I choose to do so on my own, then that is my decision. But I should have the choice.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. You see the definition of it right there. To deny it is a belief is silly.
God, I love that song.
As far as this "service" I find it to be creepy. Very very creepy.
The other misconception is that "10,000 churches" represents a "huge majority" of Christians world wide. Well over a billion people on earth follow the Christian religion. Even if every church out of that 10,000 had 300 people in their congregation, that's only 3 million people who support their views. For the sake of simplicity, say there is only a billion Christians in the world.
3,000,000/1,000,000,000 = 0.003%. Hardly a "huge majority"
Your stamp statement does not parallel what I said about a belief in nothing.
belief - as defined on dictionary.com
belief
–noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
atheism:
atheism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheism is a belief.
The amount of people that do it means nothing. They are still twisting and misinterpreting their beliefs to justify it. I will reiterate, neither the Christian nor Islam religions condone killing people in the name of God or Allah. 99% of the people in both religions could be out killing people in the name of God or Allah. All that means is that 99% of the people in both religions have gone completely against the moral standards their religions require.
Also forgot to remind you that there are twisted people of all beliefs (the belief in nothing is still a belief). Just because Pol Pot and Stalin didn't "kill in the name of atheism" doesn't mean that others haven't and certainly doesn't mean that Pol Pot and Stalin are "better" than people who kill in the name of their deity. It's still senseless killing and they are equally bad.
The belief in a power that takes them above the law of man. by it's very nature, means people will feel anything they do in their gods name is good and morally correct thing to do.
Belief in a higher power is bad, horrible and destructive. Whether the higher power is a God, or an unquestioning faith in the government.
Then these people do not truly follow their religions. The people that kill in the name of their god are extremists in their religion and do not and should not be the staple that we base our opinions of the general people of those religions. Neither Christianity nor Islam condone killing people in the name of God or Allah. The original person is correct.
People do bad things because it's a part of their nature, not because they believe in a higher power.
I did forget that one. Lol. I was not in anyway trying to imply that DESCHALL was the first distributed computer discovery. It probably isn't, but it came before this pulsar project so there is no way the pulsar project is the first. :)
Prior to this, I only knew of two distributed computing projects, SETI and DESCHALL. DESCHALL was an effort in the mid 90's to prove to the government that their Data Encryption Standard (DES) was not a secure encryption type, and it was successful in 1996. 14 years before this event.
I think it's pretty clear that the man is very humble and selfless. Since when is being these things considered to be abnormal? He should be honored and respected for his actions, not called abnormal.
Just because there are other options that are not as good as Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T doesn't automatically make those three premium services. Those are the STANDARD that other companies should try to emulate.
Let me put it this way. Ferrari cars are (supposedly) beyond standard cars in quality, performance, luxury, etc. They are also rare, so all this combined means they are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. In reality, what you are paying for is a name. They are still just a car that can be totaled, they aren't some super safe vehicles, they still get shitty gas mileage, and they still have to be maintained. Personally, anyone who actually pays $400,000 for a car (Ferrari or not) is delusional. The ONLY thing that makes them worth that much is their rarity.
Verizon, Sprint, AT&T ARE the standard for phone service. They are not rare, they still only provide phone service. People who are willing to pay $100+ a month for cell service (that's not even unlimited minutes) are crazy.