Insurance is always a bad bet, otherwise the insurance company will send itself into bankruptcy (thereby making those policies bad bets anyway).
So that's not the issue, the issue is can you afford the repair/replacement cost if you are the unlucky one with the failing item.
Insuring your house is a bad bet too, statistically it is cheaper to just pay to build a new one if it burns down then it is to have insurance. But most people can't afford to do that so paying more, statistically, is beneficial. I doubt a cell phone or TV falls into the same category:)
Note, the reason you don't talk to the police is because they lie to you - which happens to also be why you don't believe a word they say. They're job is to put people in jail, I am a person, hence they aren't on my side.
This article is about someone who was told by a cop he could do something when in fact he wasn't allowed to. So surprise surprise, a cop lied.
And two members of my family are cops, so no they aren't outside my "monkeysphere".
That is clearly not "the only possible explanation", it doesn't matter if it is the most probable or the one favored by the investigators or even the actual correct explanation there are a bunch of others that are still possible explanations
"a copyright owner" does not mean "the only copyright owner", in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners (which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his).
I actually don't think the Federal Government should be involved in health care so you can go and fuck yourself with your assumptions.
Governments exist to take from the productive to the benefit of the less productive, surely that's obvious enough? If not name one thing the government does that doesn't come under that umbrella?
It wouldn't actually be "whatever we had at year X" it'd be the thing that everyone complains about "we have X dollars, how can we best allocate them", so yes the 90 year old likely isn't getting anything beyond pain killers for her cancer and yes I'm a heartless bastard.
There's no sense of "deserves" for the individual if Bill Gates rocks up he gets exactly what the homeless guy gets for the same condition. There's always the risk of scope creep because politicians are idiots, but the idea is to keep the health care at such a low level that everybody who can afford something better will pay for something better.
The government should stop preventing me from getting the insurance I want (I'm stuck with the one my employer selected because even though it's not what I would choose it comes from pre-tax income and hence nothing can compete with it). But that's true with or without a universal public health system.
Forcing the person to spend it doesn't deal with the actual reason for wanting a public health and a public education system: those who can't afford it at all, for whom there is no money to put aside anyway.
Yes, lots of Americans hate that idea and believe those people should just die anyway - they are unproductive losers who aren't contributing to society after all.
But slightly more rational people realize that having poor people spread diseases to you and die on your doorstep isn't pleasant. And having poor kids steal your stuff instead of being in school is a pain. And that you'll spend more on running prisons than you would have on schools in the long term anyway.
Medical care isn't expensive and education isn't expensive. Somehow America has made them expensive.
Seriously how much does it cost to give someone what was the state of the art medical care for 1960 (with more modern treatments where they are less expensive)? That seems good enough for a public system to me (with the benefit that non-poor people won't use it and hence will subsidize those that do).
That's simply a ridiculous argument. Of course the government has the right to take from producers and give to non-producers.
They take taxes from producers in order to fund the armed forces which protect the non-producers from foreign invaders.
If producers don't like that they are free to recounce their citizenship and move to Zimbabwe or to vote against it if they think some other benefits of the country are worthwhile.
You have a very bizarre idea of what "the only possible explanation" means.
Off the top of my head here's another possibility:
Smart kids get bumped forward a grade. Smart kids get bored to death by school, since there's too much revision of stuff they already understand, this looks like attention deficit so they get put on medication via misdiagnosis.
Yes. Lots of people live just fine with no healthcare at all. All they do is get routine checks done which come back as "all is well" and hence could have not been done and they would have been fine. They take no prescription drugs, and so on.
Sure one day they'll likely need it, but doctors could have not existed for the last 10 years and they'd be in exactly the same state of health.
Yes, because no one would pay for their own treatment if they were wealthy enough and didn't like what the public system offered them. And hence there'd be no money in medicine at all...
The *entire* idea of universal health care is to provide a bare minimum level of health care to *everyone*. A level which should be minimum enough that those with the resources will go elsewhere.
Just like the "universal school system" in which public schools are for everyone but those with the resources tend to send their kids to private schools.
Restrictions on what insurance companies can and can not offer as health insurance has *nothing* to do with universal healthcare. Sure the idiots in the US only kjnow how to fuck things up, so they'll find a way - but that's not due to anything fundamental with universal healthcare itself.
Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you?
That we can safely ignore everything you say because you just repeat garbage you've heard somewhere else without bothering to think about it for ten seconds let alone check to see if it is correct.
Anything that you say that is by chance also correct we'll hear elsewhere anyway, so no loss.
I flew out of Newark yesterday and the three xray monitors for the xray scanner on the lane next to me was in plain site (and I would guess the other ones were in plain site for people in the other lanes - except the first lane they miss out). And since it took 15 minutes to get through every single passenger in line got to watch it for 15 minutes. It's easy to circle back for another pass through security, pick a different line if you think they might recognize you (but they won't anyway - at least not unless they review the security camera video later).
Note the word "alleged". They are accusing her of doing it in order illegally enter the country.
She obviously did impersonate someone, well at least claim to be someone who possibly doesn't exist at all, since otherwise she wouldn't be in the country.
It seems pretty cut and dry since she would also have had to use false information on the parts of the immigration form asking things like "what is your name?", "have you ever been deported?", and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
The context is some companies being sued for including GPLd software on hardware devices.
Insurance is always a bad bet, otherwise the insurance company will send itself into bankruptcy (thereby making those policies bad bets anyway).
So that's not the issue, the issue is can you afford the repair/replacement cost if you are the unlucky one with the failing item.
Insuring your house is a bad bet too, statistically it is cheaper to just pay to build a new one if it burns down then it is to have insurance. But most people can't afford to do that so paying more, statistically, is beneficial. I doubt a cell phone or TV falls into the same category :)
Does "some" really mean "complete" where you are from?
How is it a troll?
I take it this is a huge troll then: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912, note 12:30 and 19:40 where we have blatant "I lie through my teeth" statements.
Note, the reason you don't talk to the police is because they lie to you - which happens to also be why you don't believe a word they say. They're job is to put people in jail, I am a person, hence they aren't on my side.
This article is about someone who was told by a cop he could do something when in fact he wasn't allowed to. So surprise surprise, a cop lied.
And two members of my family are cops, so no they aren't outside my "monkeysphere".
My assertion isn't contradicted by evidence.
That is clearly not "the only possible explanation", it doesn't matter if it is the most probable or the one favored by the investigators or even the actual correct explanation there are a bunch of others that are still possible explanations
The meaning is dead obvious from the context, and it isn't what you declare to be the typical one.
"a copyright owner" does not mean "the only copyright owner", in fact the language seems quite precise to be stating that he is but one of the owners (which is all he needs to be to file suit for the part that is his).
Please show me where the word unlimited it used in reference to that plan (by the ISP obviously, not by a random slashdot poster).
Or are you just making shit up?
No but the guy three doors down hears them and might buy something.
I had foolishly assumed he wasn't born a cop.
And no health care applies to everyone jointly. Or do you like the idea of smallpox breaking out in your city?
I actually don't think the Federal Government should be involved in health care so you can go and fuck yourself with your assumptions.
Governments exist to take from the productive to the benefit of the less productive, surely that's obvious enough? If not name one thing the government does that doesn't come under that umbrella?
I'm just picking a number.
It wouldn't actually be "whatever we had at year X" it'd be the thing that everyone complains about "we have X dollars, how can we best allocate them", so yes the 90 year old likely isn't getting anything beyond pain killers for her cancer and yes I'm a heartless bastard.
There's no sense of "deserves" for the individual if Bill Gates rocks up he gets exactly what the homeless guy gets for the same condition. There's always the risk of scope creep because politicians are idiots, but the idea is to keep the health care at such a low level that everybody who can afford something better will pay for something better.
He's a cop, he must know rule number 2:
2. Never believe a word a cop says.
Almost as important as rule number 1:
1. Never talk to the police.
That's an orthogonal issue.
The government should stop preventing me from getting the insurance I want (I'm stuck with the one my employer selected because even though it's not what I would choose it comes from pre-tax income and hence nothing can compete with it). But that's true with or without a universal public health system.
Forcing the person to spend it doesn't deal with the actual reason for wanting a public health and a public education system: those who can't afford it at all, for whom there is no money to put aside anyway.
Yes, lots of Americans hate that idea and believe those people should just die anyway - they are unproductive losers who aren't contributing to society after all.
But slightly more rational people realize that having poor people spread diseases to you and die on your doorstep isn't pleasant. And having poor kids steal your stuff instead of being in school is a pain. And that you'll spend more on running prisons than you would have on schools in the long term anyway.
Medical care isn't expensive and education isn't expensive. Somehow America has made them expensive.
Seriously how much does it cost to give someone what was the state of the art medical care for 1960 (with more modern treatments where they are less expensive)? That seems good enough for a public system to me (with the benefit that non-poor people won't use it and hence will subsidize those that do).
That's simply a ridiculous argument. Of course the government has the right to take from producers and give to non-producers.
They take taxes from producers in order to fund the armed forces which protect the non-producers from foreign invaders.
If producers don't like that they are free to recounce their citizenship and move to Zimbabwe or to vote against it if they think some other benefits of the country are worthwhile.
You have a very bizarre idea of what "the only possible explanation" means.
Off the top of my head here's another possibility:
Smart kids get bumped forward a grade. Smart kids get bored to death by school, since there's too much revision of stuff they already understand, this looks like attention deficit so they get put on medication via misdiagnosis.
Yes. Lots of people live just fine with no healthcare at all. All they do is get routine checks done which come back as "all is well" and hence could have not been done and they would have been fine. They take no prescription drugs, and so on.
Sure one day they'll likely need it, but doctors could have not existed for the last 10 years and they'd be in exactly the same state of health.
Yes, because no one would pay for their own treatment if they were wealthy enough and didn't like what the public system offered them. And hence there'd be no money in medicine at all...
The *entire* idea of universal health care is to provide a bare minimum level of health care to *everyone*. A level which should be minimum enough that those with the resources will go elsewhere.
Just like the "universal school system" in which public schools are for everyone but those with the resources tend to send their kids to private schools.
Restrictions on what insurance companies can and can not offer as health insurance has *nothing* to do with universal healthcare. Sure the idiots in the US only kjnow how to fuck things up, so they'll find a way - but that's not due to anything fundamental with universal healthcare itself.
Yes they should be sued for actually advertising exactly what they are delivering.
Greenland used to be GREEN with vegetation. It is presently covered in ice. What does that tell you?
That we can safely ignore everything you say because you just repeat garbage you've heard somewhere else without bothering to think about it for ten seconds let alone check to see if it is correct.
Anything that you say that is by chance also correct we'll hear elsewhere anyway, so no loss.
It's not broken, since you weren't being sarcastic, or you are extremely bad at trying to do so I guess.
It's always a false positive.
When was the last time you saw a real valid positive while lining up and seeing hundreds of people go through security in front of you?
Other than bottles of water, yes, they are pretty good as stopping those.
They aren't very good that.
I flew out of Newark yesterday and the three xray monitors for the xray scanner on the lane next to me was in plain site (and I would guess the other ones were in plain site for people in the other lanes - except the first lane they miss out). And since it took 15 minutes to get through every single passenger in line got to watch it for 15 minutes. It's easy to circle back for another pass through security, pick a different line if you think they might recognize you (but they won't anyway - at least not unless they review the security camera video later).
Note the word "alleged". They are accusing her of doing it in order illegally enter the country.
She obviously did impersonate someone, well at least claim to be someone who possibly doesn't exist at all, since otherwise she wouldn't be in the country.
It seems pretty cut and dry since she would also have had to use false information on the parts of the immigration form asking things like "what is your name?", "have you ever been deported?", and so on.