That's not what the article (or summary) says. They aren't asking for things the employee created, they are asking for the email the employee received.
The police already do this. And it works just fine.
Sure there no guarantee that just becuase you have a friend who plays a lot of board games that you do. But there's a better chance that you do than that some random person does. If you have 20 such friends who all play board games the probability is higher still.
In the police work field, if you keep associating with known criminals you'll be getting a closer look at than a random person. Doesn't mean you are a criminal and it certainly doesn't work as proof for anything.
So you are saying that if I write an email on my company's time then that email is the property of my company? Thus if I send that email to your work address then it is still the property of my company and hence your company has no legal right to a demand another copy of it.
If I send Bob an email to his work email address, the fact that he signed such a peice of paper with his employer has no relevance to whether I own the content I created.
Except with that idea their votes are worth every so slightly more than the votes of the people in the state that just goes with the popular vote. Again, that's bad for the people in that state, since there votes are now worth less than "nothing" by your metric.
For the people in that state their vote is worth only what the vote of every other person in the country is worth. Whereas for everyone not in that state their vote is worth that plus whatever is adds to the chance of winning the electoral college votes of the state they are in. Hence the votes in the state doing that are worth less than the votes in other states.
Because that isn't selling something at an excessive price. Just because I'm not allowed to sell you something at an excessive price doesn't mean i have to give it to you.
What they should be able and what they can legally do don't have to be the same.
I should be able use marijuana, but legally I can not. I should be able to keep and bear a fully automatic assault rifle but legally I can not. I should be able to use the services of a prostitute, but legally I can not. I should be able to commit adultery, but legally I can not. I should be able to sell my property for an unconscionably excessive price during a declared emergency, but legally I can not.
Now different people will disagree on which of those you "should" be able to do, but they are all against the law in New York.
They is valid in the singular. You might consider it bad style, but it's been common enough in English since Chaucer ("And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,/They wol come up"), so writing such that you only communicate correctly to those who have the same grammatical nit pick as you seems inefficient.
Yes it would be a great idea if you wanted the citizens of your state to have a much smaller say in the outcome than the citizens of other states. And wanted to ensure that none of the promises and bribes in an election cycle had any benefit for your citizens.
It's for people involved in bike racing. You can call that an expensive toy, and of course it is. But compared to what people spend on other sports it's hardly at the extreme end - a bike is expensive but so is the combined salaries of a football team.
US population is 315,000,000 with 12.8% being aged 65+.
EU population is 503,000,000 with 16.8% being aged 65+
Since cancer mostly effects the aged you would expect the US cancer deaths to be 48% of the EU ones, that would seem to explain a large chunk of the difference. That smoking rates are higher in the EU than in the US is going to explain some more of it. So what evidence have you got of any correlation to health care structures and funding?
You compare an overall rate with a marginal rate and you're surprised the marginal one is higher? Are you actually stupid enough to think that's a valid comparison or just trying to be deceptive?
22% marginal rate versus 25% marginal rate didn't fit your bias so you compared non-similar things to make the fact fit your view better?
And of course the state level taxes are significantly higher in Canada, at that income the marginal rate would be from 7% to 17.4% (depending on which province you were in) compared with from 0% to 9.3% in the US (again depending on which state you were in).
Of course deductions and rebates are different, as are the non plain income taxes, so it's still not a great comparison.
I understand how it works, probably not perfectly but well enough. I'm saying it isn't "insurance" and so calling it that is silly, and it's a remarkably poor way to run a health system to boot.
If something is a diagnostic for some symptom then it isn't "day-to-day" that's an unexpected event and something it makes sense for insurance to cover. Of course the more things insurance covers and the more it covers them the more is will cost (see home insurance where there are various levels of what is events are covered and what the coverage actually is). Preventative care is different, under an actual insurance setup (rather than the one health insurance uses) that would be incentivised in some manner. Either by the cost being subsidized by the insurance (like installing a security system is on some house insurance - since it reduces the probability of a larger payout doing it reduces the insurance rates) or outright paid for if the insurance company thinks that will be cheaper in the long term.
And yes it's all about money. That's what insurance is. A sane system of health care isn't concerned only with money and hence there are more factors to consider than just "it will cost $X to do these preventative measures, and the will reduce the payouts for something in the future by $Y, if XX then we don't". But the US doesn't want that apparently and would prefer to use an insurance that isn't really insurance setup.
Insurance is simply a ludicrious model for "day-to-day care". It's like having rent insurance that pays your rent all the time or grocery insurance that pays for your groceries every week. What idiot would sell such a thing for less than what your rent or groceries would cost in the first place? But with health care that seems to be the American expectation.
Not "catastrophe" or just rare event insurance makes sense. Rent insurance that you paid a small amount into each week and that pays your rent in some defined situations (the more likely they are the more it costs) makes sense.
Insurance on your car that replaces your car if it is stolen or wrecked makes sense, insurnace that pays for your weekly gas does not.
And then America couples this crazy "use insurance for expected events" system with the just as crazy "risk doesn't matter". If you wreck your car once a month you'll quickly find that car insurance companies will refuse to sell you insurance or charge very high rates - they need to in order to get more in payments from you than they expect to pay out (that is how insurance works after all). However, in health insurance that apparently is evil. If someone is far more likely to generate large costs (either in a specific case or just statistically) then it would be unfair to charge them more.
Other than "All medicine is banned except for leeches, if you have any form of sickness please attend the daily bloodletting via leech application at your local town hall" it's hard to think of a worse way of dealing with the issue of health care.
If you want some base level of health care then just have the government handle that without dealing with stupid insurance setups. I happen to think that would be better done at the State level, but I really have to assume that the supreme court judges have a better understanding of the consitution and so on that I do so I can live with Federal level. Making health care a money siphon to the insurance companies, that I have trouble accepting.
It's a limited resource you have to ration somehow. You can do that via the market so that money is used to determine the rationing and resource allocation or you can have a "free health care" type setup in which you will have waiting lists and so on in order to ration. You can have a mix. I see valid arguments for and against both. This insurance setup though, it's just stupid - are there any arguments for it at all?
But the democrats (well some of them) complained when Bush did so - remember Bushitler and so on.
Whereas Clinton got away with it, and Obama even more so.
The drones aren't the real issue, they're just an obvious and well known if imperfect example. Banker bailouts might have been a better choice.
It's just a strange situation in which I think (I haven't thought deeply about it) I would prefer the guy who I like less to have won. On a political axis I might be a at -1 while they are +8 and +8.5. So they are both terrible (in my opinion obviously) but one is slightly worse. However, the one that is slightly better is likely going to be able to get more of the stuff I don't like done because the huge chunk of people at +5 (or whatever, I'm making up numbers on an undefined axis) would heavily criticise the +8.5 guy about things they'll let the +8 guy get away.
But the more crazy douchenozzle would have at least had some resistance from the democrats. But when you have a Democratic President going nuts with targeted assassinations (including of US citizens) no one complains since the Republicans love the idea anyway. If it was a Republican President at least the Democrats might make some noise about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung is the Seagate's second largest shareholder.
That's not what the article (or summary) says. They aren't asking for things the employee created, they are asking for the email the employee received.
The police already do this. And it works just fine.
Sure there no guarantee that just becuase you have a friend who plays a lot of board games that you do. But there's a better chance that you do than that some random person does. If you have 20 such friends who all play board games the probability is higher still.
In the police work field, if you keep associating with known criminals you'll be getting a closer look at than a random person. Doesn't mean you are a criminal and it certainly doesn't work as proof for anything.
So you are saying that if I write an email on my company's time then that email is the property of my company? Thus if I send that email to your work address then it is still the property of my company and hence your company has no legal right to a demand another copy of it.
So you are agreeing with the judge's decision.
Analogies are supposed to have some vague relation to the actual thing being talked about.
There was no company computer used to type in the bits and bytes.
If I send Bob an email to his work email address, the fact that he signed such a peice of paper with his employer has no relevance to whether I own the content I created.
Which would change nothing. I realise reading the article might be too much learning for you, but you could try the summary.
So change banks?
If you put up with such crap then obviously there's no incentive for businesses not to dish it out.
Except with that idea their votes are worth every so slightly more than the votes of the people in the state that just goes with the popular vote. Again, that's bad for the people in that state, since there votes are now worth less than "nothing" by your metric.
The law says one thing is illegal and the other things is legal. The morality is irrelevant.
For the people in that state their vote is worth only what the vote of every other person in the country is worth. Whereas for everyone not in that state their vote is worth that plus whatever is adds to the chance of winning the electoral college votes of the state they are in. Hence the votes in the state doing that are worth less than the votes in other states.
Because that isn't selling something at an excessive price. Just because I'm not allowed to sell you something at an excessive price doesn't mean i have to give it to you.
What they should be able and what they can legally do don't have to be the same.
I should be able use marijuana, but legally I can not. I should be able to keep and bear a fully automatic assault rifle but legally I can not. I should be able to use the services of a prostitute, but legally I can not. I should be able to commit adultery, but legally I can not. I should be able to sell my property for an unconscionably excessive price during a declared emergency, but legally I can not.
Now different people will disagree on which of those you "should" be able to do, but they are all against the law in New York.
What part of it do you think isn't compatible with the government placing few restrictions on the activities and ownership of businesses?
They is valid in the singular. You might consider it bad style, but it's been common enough in English since Chaucer ("And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,/They wol come up"), so writing such that you only communicate correctly to those who have the same grammatical nit pick as you seems inefficient.
Yes it would be a great idea if you wanted the citizens of your state to have a much smaller say in the outcome than the citizens of other states. And wanted to ensure that none of the promises and bribes in an election cycle had any benefit for your citizens.
It's for people involved in bike racing. You can call that an expensive toy, and of course it is. But compared to what people spend on other sports it's hardly at the extreme end - a bike is expensive but so is the combined salaries of a football team.
US population is 315,000,000 with 12.8% being aged 65+.
EU population is 503,000,000 with 16.8% being aged 65+
Since cancer mostly effects the aged you would expect the US cancer deaths to be 48% of the EU ones, that would seem to explain a large chunk of the difference. That smoking rates are higher in the EU than in the US is going to explain some more of it. So what evidence have you got of any correlation to health care structures and funding?
You compare an overall rate with a marginal rate and you're surprised the marginal one is higher? Are you actually stupid enough to think that's a valid comparison or just trying to be deceptive?
22% marginal rate versus 25% marginal rate didn't fit your bias so you compared non-similar things to make the fact fit your view better?
And of course the state level taxes are significantly higher in Canada, at that income the marginal rate would be from 7% to 17.4% (depending on which province you were in) compared with from 0% to 9.3% in the US (again depending on which state you were in).
Of course deductions and rebates are different, as are the non plain income taxes, so it's still not a great comparison.
I assure you AT&T does not pay a tax rate of 100%, and hence writing things off as costs does not "fully offset" anything.
I understand how it works, probably not perfectly but well enough. I'm saying it isn't "insurance" and so calling it that is silly, and it's a remarkably poor way to run a health system to boot.
If something is a diagnostic for some symptom then it isn't "day-to-day" that's an unexpected event and something it makes sense for insurance to cover. Of course the more things insurance covers and the more it covers them the more is will cost (see home insurance where there are various levels of what is events are covered and what the coverage actually is). Preventative care is different, under an actual insurance setup (rather than the one health insurance uses) that would be incentivised in some manner. Either by the cost being subsidized by the insurance (like installing a security system is on some house insurance - since it reduces the probability of a larger payout doing it reduces the insurance rates) or outright paid for if the insurance company thinks that will be cheaper in the long term.
And yes it's all about money. That's what insurance is. A sane system of health care isn't concerned only with money and hence there are more factors to consider than just "it will cost $X to do these preventative measures, and the will reduce the payouts for something in the future by $Y, if XX then we don't". But the US doesn't want that apparently and would prefer to use an insurance that isn't really insurance setup.
Insurance is simply a ludicrious model for "day-to-day care". It's like having rent insurance that pays your rent all the time or grocery insurance that pays for your groceries every week. What idiot would sell such a thing for less than what your rent or groceries would cost in the first place? But with health care that seems to be the American expectation.
Not "catastrophe" or just rare event insurance makes sense. Rent insurance that you paid a small amount into each week and that pays your rent in some defined situations (the more likely they are the more it costs) makes sense.
Insurance on your car that replaces your car if it is stolen or wrecked makes sense, insurnace that pays for your weekly gas does not.
And then America couples this crazy "use insurance for expected events" system with the just as crazy "risk doesn't matter". If you wreck your car once a month you'll quickly find that car insurance companies will refuse to sell you insurance or charge very high rates - they need to in order to get more in payments from you than they expect to pay out (that is how insurance works after all). However, in health insurance that apparently is evil. If someone is far more likely to generate large costs (either in a specific case or just statistically) then it would be unfair to charge them more.
Other than "All medicine is banned except for leeches, if you have any form of sickness please attend the daily bloodletting via leech application at your local town hall" it's hard to think of a worse way of dealing with the issue of health care.
If you want some base level of health care then just have the government handle that without dealing with stupid insurance setups. I happen to think that would be better done at the State level, but I really have to assume that the supreme court judges have a better understanding of the consitution and so on that I do so I can live with Federal level. Making health care a money siphon to the insurance companies, that I have trouble accepting.
It's a limited resource you have to ration somehow. You can do that via the market so that money is used to determine the rationing and resource allocation or you can have a "free health care" type setup in which you will have waiting lists and so on in order to ration. You can have a mix. I see valid arguments for and against both. This insurance setup though, it's just stupid - are there any arguments for it at all?
Conceeding doesn't stop the counting, or have any effect at all on who actually wins. So none of that is relevant.
But the democrats (well some of them) complained when Bush did so - remember Bushitler and so on.
Whereas Clinton got away with it, and Obama even more so.
The drones aren't the real issue, they're just an obvious and well known if imperfect example. Banker bailouts might have been a better choice.
It's just a strange situation in which I think (I haven't thought deeply about it) I would prefer the guy who I like less to have won. On a political axis I might be a at -1 while they are +8 and +8.5. So they are both terrible (in my opinion obviously) but one is slightly worse. However, the one that is slightly better is likely going to be able to get more of the stuff I don't like done because the huge chunk of people at +5 (or whatever, I'm making up numbers on an undefined axis) would heavily criticise the +8.5 guy about things they'll let the +8 guy get away.
But the more crazy douchenozzle would have at least had some resistance from the democrats. But when you have a Democratic President going nuts with targeted assassinations (including of US citizens) no one complains since the Republicans love the idea anyway. If it was a Republican President at least the Democrats might make some noise about it.