What they want to avoid are product specific endorcements especially of the proprietary kind that lead you to believe the support is exclusive to that platform.
I expect they'd be fine with a compatibility table however.
Repeating yourself and getting louder doesn't make you more right, it just makes you look ignorant and annoying, and is a sad reflection on the state of discussion in the world.
Either way, once again, it's not about freedom for everyone, its about freedom for the *users*. Arguing this point using restrictions on parties other than the *users* is a tangent at best, and deception at worst.
I didn't say Republicans, I said right wing. Conservatism. Not all conservatives are Republicans, neither are all Democrats left wing pacifists. I am not trying to bring partisanship into the discussion.
The compromise was exactly that, a compromise, not tyranny or forcing of some agenda. The electorate as a whole voted for their representatives as our government was designed, and those representatives did as they promised they would do if elected. Yes they could have done more, but they did what they could with what they had to work with at this point in time. I am honestly very amazed they accomplished it at all, considering the howling that many of the interests that would be harmed by proper regulation and better protection for the populace in general did to convince the electorate that it was a horrible tyranny that their government was trying to do as it promised it would do if properly elected in trying to extend medical coverage to almost all Americans.
You are asserting that if insurance companies were required to cover, say, asthma (a pre-existing condition in many cases), that hospitals would start refusing to treat people without payment up front? I don't see how the two are related. Can you explain that to me?
What? That rejoining of separate reasons and arguments makes no sense (as you even stated, but you still did it anyway), but I will try to address it.
No, Insurance companies must make a profit or they will not stay in business. If pre-existing conditions are required to be taken, and not given exorbitant premiums as such, and there is no mandate for coverage, then you will quickly see a tragedy of the commons effect where no one will get this so called "insurance" which is really a group negotiation and cost spreading tool until they need it, quickly collapsing the entire system.
Medical Care givers are the same way currently, if they cannot make money, they will not continue to exist in their current state.
Medical care is a public service, and if you do not provide it, the populace as a whole suffers due to even more loss of productivity and costs.
You assert it is a public service when it obviously isn't. You are begging the question. There's a cost to having free coverage for everyone, and there's a cost to not having free coverage for everyone. If you'd like, compare those costs. But to assert that one is obviously better because the other has costs is absurd.
This is the only realistic way forward under our current system without trying to rework how society itself treats medical care costs, which is even more of a ridiculous notion in itself.
Not even going to bother. You can scream that medical care isn't a public good service all you want, it doesn't change things.
"This"? What is "this"? Are you saying that treating it as a public service, which you already asserted, is the only way? Why is that? There are many ways it can be handled, and to assume one, say that's better than what we have, and thus it must be the optimal solution is silly. What we have in the US now is worse than it has ever been. If we have government mandated care, it needs to be single-payer. If we are going to be required by the government to buy insurance, then the government itself should be one to offer a policy. Requiring by law that we buy something from a private enterprise is absurd and should be unconstitutional. And before anyone brings up car insurance, I know of no place where you are required to have car insurance. All the places I've lived let you buy a bond for about the minimum insurance number. Of course, insurance is cheaper than the government solution, but the government at least has a non-private choice. The health care plan has no such choice, regardless of how impractical that choice might have been.
This: The current state of things, I.E. mandated insurance coverage and additional regulation on insurance companies.
I agree we really need to go to a single payer system, but this is the compromise that the right wing forced.
No it wouldn't. You will still have geometric expansion of costs due to people not paying via various means, unless you plan on bringing back debtors prison or something, or refusing to treat people without payment up front, which is just as horrible.
Medical care is a public service, and if you do not provide it, the populace as a whole suffers due to even more loss of productivity and costs.
This is the only realistic way forward under our current system without trying to rework how society itself treats medical care costs, which is even more of a ridiculous notion in itself.
It has nothing to do with charity. Medical Insurance isn't really about insurance as it is currently treated by *all* parties. Insurance would be against something catastrophic not regular. You don't turn in oil changes, new tires, and gasoline on your car insurance.
Medical insurance as it currently stands is effectively a price negotiation pool, along with group acclamation of costs. Trying to pretend it is anything else is disingenuous at best.
And trying to go without insurance under the current system is just foolish, not just due to the potential of huge costs due to risk, but also simply the issue of price offloading to those that don't have the negotiating power to fight it.
I know people like to rant about the above (forced buying of insurance), but honestly, it is the *only* option if you force insurance companies to accept people with existing conditions. You can't have it both ways, and with our current medical and insurance system, this option is FAR better for everyone than the alternative.
And you don't find a problem (or an amazing sense of irony) with the Pope effectively saying don't trust things you hear or read because they might be lies?
Yeah that is the problem. The rating is miles per gallon of gasoline, not miles per unit joule of energy. That's why the MPG estimates are a lie *without* draining the batteries.
I agree completely that we need new eff ratings however that can incorporate the charge discharge cycles of non originated electricity (efficiency of storage from the grid, efficiency of motivation from discharge of the battery, efficiency of storage of charge from gasoline, etc.)
For the record, I'm very liberal, and I still think this guy deserved his fate. If anything, they should fine him for calling 911.
If you vote not to have (pay for) government protection, then you shouldn't get to demand the government (pay to) protect you.
Note: I live in Tennessee and have to deal with the crowds of people demanding both no taxes, and 10x better government education, and yes, generally the TEA Partiers are indeed angry at state / county services as well.
Personally I'd like to shake the prosecutors hand. Some things are defensible. This is not one of them. If anything, he should go punch his relative for being so downright stupid to be burning things in the yard while refusing to pay $75 for fire response coverage.
Yeah but think of the alternatives, we could have had that Bush kid win, and gotten in 2 wars, a huge deficit, lost a great number of personal freedoms in the name of security, etc.
I'd say it's closer to "We've thought the earth was flat for centuries, how can you come and say the earth is round, even with your newfangled theories and tests, I discount all your research and stick to my pre-existing beliefs"
No prosecutors are not bound by law to enforce anything, descretion is supposed to be the entire reason they get to select cases instead of everything being automatic.
And even all that aside, there's straight up summons and contempt. You can mess with a lot of people, but stay away from judges, and sheriffs, you're just going to lose, and badly.
Slashdot Mirror
Not trying to cherry pick at all.
What they want to avoid are product specific endorcements especially of the proprietary kind that lead you to believe the support is exclusive to that platform.
I expect they'd be fine with a compatibility table however.
Repeating yourself and getting louder doesn't make you more right, it just makes you look ignorant and annoying, and is a sad reflection on the state of discussion in the world.
Either way, once again, it's not about freedom for everyone, its about freedom for the *users*. Arguing this point using restrictions on parties other than the *users* is a tangent at best, and deception at worst.
No, they are quite clear its about freedom of the *users*, not everyone.
I didn't say Republicans, I said right wing. Conservatism. Not all conservatives are Republicans, neither are all Democrats left wing pacifists. I am not trying to bring partisanship into the discussion.
The compromise was exactly that, a compromise, not tyranny or forcing of some agenda. The electorate as a whole voted for their representatives as our government was designed, and those representatives did as they promised they would do if elected. Yes they could have done more, but they did what they could with what they had to work with at this point in time. I am honestly very amazed they accomplished it at all, considering the howling that many of the interests that would be harmed by proper regulation and better protection for the populace in general did to convince the electorate that it was a horrible tyranny that their government was trying to do as it promised it would do if properly elected in trying to extend medical coverage to almost all Americans.
You are asserting that if insurance companies were required to cover, say, asthma (a pre-existing condition in many cases), that hospitals would start refusing to treat people without payment up front? I don't see how the two are related. Can you explain that to me?
What? That rejoining of separate reasons and arguments makes no sense (as you even stated, but you still did it anyway), but I will try to address it.
No, Insurance companies must make a profit or they will not stay in business. If pre-existing conditions are required to be taken, and not given exorbitant premiums as such, and there is no mandate for coverage, then you will quickly see a tragedy of the commons effect where no one will get this so called "insurance" which is really a group negotiation and cost spreading tool until they need it, quickly collapsing the entire system.
Medical Care givers are the same way currently, if they cannot make money, they will not continue to exist in their current state.
Medical care is a public service, and if you do not provide it, the populace as a whole suffers due to even more loss of productivity and costs.
You assert it is a public service when it obviously isn't. You are begging the question. There's a cost to having free coverage for everyone, and there's a cost to not having free coverage for everyone. If you'd like, compare those costs. But to assert that one is obviously better because the other has costs is absurd.
This is the only realistic way forward under our current system without trying to rework how society itself treats medical care costs, which is even more of a ridiculous notion in itself.
Not even going to bother. You can scream that medical care isn't a public good service all you want, it doesn't change things.
"This"? What is "this"? Are you saying that treating it as a public service, which you already asserted, is the only way? Why is that? There are many ways it can be handled, and to assume one, say that's better than what we have, and thus it must be the optimal solution is silly. What we have in the US now is worse than it has ever been. If we have government mandated care, it needs to be single-payer. If we are going to be required by the government to buy insurance, then the government itself should be one to offer a policy. Requiring by law that we buy something from a private enterprise is absurd and should be unconstitutional. And before anyone brings up car insurance, I know of no place where you are required to have car insurance. All the places I've lived let you buy a bond for about the minimum insurance number. Of course, insurance is cheaper than the government solution, but the government at least has a non-private choice. The health care plan has no such choice, regardless of how impractical that choice might have been.
This: The current state of things, I.E. mandated insurance coverage and additional regulation on insurance companies.
I agree we really need to go to a single payer system, but this is the compromise that the right wing forced.
No it wouldn't. You will still have geometric expansion of costs due to people not paying via various means, unless you plan on bringing back debtors prison or something, or refusing to treat people without payment up front, which is just as horrible.
Medical care is a public service, and if you do not provide it, the populace as a whole suffers due to even more loss of productivity and costs.
This is the only realistic way forward under our current system without trying to rework how society itself treats medical care costs, which is even more of a ridiculous notion in itself.
agglomeration not acclimation. Stupid Firefox spell check *sigh*
It has nothing to do with charity. Medical Insurance isn't really about insurance as it is currently treated by *all* parties. Insurance would be against something catastrophic not regular. You don't turn in oil changes, new tires, and gasoline on your car insurance.
Medical insurance as it currently stands is effectively a price negotiation pool, along with group acclamation of costs. Trying to pretend it is anything else is disingenuous at best.
And trying to go without insurance under the current system is just foolish, not just due to the potential of huge costs due to risk, but also simply the issue of price offloading to those that don't have the negotiating power to fight it.
That's pretty much the crux of it, if you start risking them sales, they will care about making you go away.
I know people like to rant about the above (forced buying of insurance), but honestly, it is the *only* option if you force insurance companies to accept people with existing conditions. You can't have it both ways, and with our current medical and insurance system, this option is FAR better for everyone than the alternative.
And you don't find a problem (or an amazing sense of irony) with the Pope effectively saying don't trust things you hear or read because they might be lies?
I would venture to say that a *lot* of people have seen the afterlife. The trick is getting back and talking about it.
Yeah that is the problem. The rating is miles per gallon of gasoline, not miles per unit joule of energy. That's why the MPG estimates are a lie *without* draining the batteries.
I agree completely that we need new eff ratings however that can incorporate the charge discharge cycles of non originated electricity (efficiency of storage from the grid, efficiency of motivation from discharge of the battery, efficiency of storage of charge from gasoline, etc.)
Clearly you're just better off patenting the original necessary piece, and then just being a patent Troll, instead of using your own invention.
Yeah, I'd say the system is broken.
For the record, I'm very liberal, and I still think this guy deserved his fate. If anything, they should fine him for calling 911.
If you vote not to have (pay for) government protection, then you shouldn't get to demand the government (pay to) protect you.
Note: I live in Tennessee and have to deal with the crowds of people demanding both no taxes, and 10x better government education, and yes, generally the TEA Partiers are indeed angry at state / county services as well.
Personally I'd like to shake the prosecutors hand. Some things are defensible. This is not one of them. If anything, he should go punch his relative for being so downright stupid to be burning things in the yard while refusing to pay $75 for fire response coverage.
They don't have to, it sure helps China for the rest of the world to care though.
Honestly I think this should be the new commercial against the ultra small goverment nut jobs.
Yeah but think of the alternatives, we could have had that Bush kid win, and gotten in 2 wars, a huge deficit, lost a great number of personal freedoms in the name of security, etc.
Just look at what the onion predicted! http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/
I shudder to think of what it could have looked like.
(Yeah I had to much kharma, and couldn't resist.)
I'd say it's closer to "We've thought the earth was flat for centuries, how can you come and say the earth is round, even with your newfangled theories and tests, I discount all your research and stick to my pre-existing beliefs"
No prosecutors are not bound by law to enforce anything, descretion is supposed to be the entire reason they get to select cases instead of everything being automatic.
And even all that aside, there's straight up summons and contempt. You can mess with a lot of people, but stay away from judges, and sheriffs, you're just going to lose, and badly.
Nowhere in the law does it require the acquisition of said child porn to have been intentional.
Tell that to the DirectTV hackers. For high enough values of difficult, even all people will move on to easier targets.
Because it costs a lot of money, and the real ISPs (not the big telco operators) are already very thin on profits thanks to said telcos.