Well, to the thread as a whole, but yes, primarily to the parent of your post.
As for new rights, I think that is excessive, though the courts would do well to reinterpret the rights we already have in light of modern technology.
Fair use generally means one can do anything with copyright material so long as it does not infringe on the copyright holder's right to profit from it's exploitation. Historically, this has meant one can't redistribute copies -- that's rather obvious -- and that is facilitated if one can't make copies. But, the latter is not a justification for the former. The Betamax decision shows that mere copying is not, by itself infringement of the copyright: what would the holder argue? That by having paid to see something, and retaining a copy I'm infringing on their right to sell me the same thing again? That's horseshit.
No, what they'd like to argue is that my retaining a copy prevents them from selling me a different thing, one of their copies. But your copyright on the television broadcast should not protect your right to profit from a subsequent sale of a DVD of the content to me: they're different things. It does protect you from my selling of such a DVD myself that I manufacture from your TV broadcast.
Such restrictions are possible, by contract, specifically by license, which is different than the protections offered by copyright. But a license requires offer and acceptance, which does not happen when I watch the TV, or program my VCR to record a program.
Of course, unscrupulous copyright holders would love to bind us ever more restrictively by license, and, if we accept, there is no recourse we'd have. Caveat emptor: what exactly are you buying when you buy that shiny DVD? Our mission should be to educate the lay persons as to exactly what they'd be giving up that they have so far taken for granted, if they are so foolish to accept such licenses.
TFA says that nano-ITX isn't quite ready, and that's almost still true: I have a Via nano-ITX board and a Silverstone Lascala LC08 case into which it....
... doesn't quite fit because Via changed the board form factor at the last minute.
Silverstone says they are retooling to make new LC08 (and LC07) cases to accomodate the nano-ITX board, and I'm waiting impatiently. Sadly, what was originally to be a fanless design won't be anymore, with Silverstone's new case: Via didn't like Silverstone's heat pipe instead of a fan, and nixed the idea for the retooled case, not giving it the "nano-ITX" moniker blessing if it didn't support a fan.
Why not just use a mini-ITX?
Two words: CN400 and VT1625.
The CN400 is an HDTV resolution equivalent to the old CLE266 MPEG2 decoder chip, and the VT1625 is an HDTV resolution RGB to YPbPr (i.e. component) encoder.
MythTV with hardware-assisted HDTV MPEG2 decoding on a fanless thin clint would have been 'da bomb'! (Well, O.K. "fanless" is starting to become a matter of opinion and "do I dare not hook it up and hack a heatpipe?", but still.)
There are miniITX boards with the CN400 (Commell makes one), and there are fanless mini-ITX solutions (Hush PC makes one, heatpipe-based, but alas it won't accomodate the Commell board, and is as expensive as it is good looking), but the two sets don't yet intersect, which is why I was pinning my hopes on the nano-ITX board.
There are already patches to CLE266 and VT1623 drivers to accomodate the CN400 and VT1625, so Myth on the thing looks like a slam-dunk.
I've already got the nano-ITX board, and an (early, and therefore useless) LC08 case, so, despite the fan issue, I'm likely to go ahead and build the thing (nano-ITX, 512MB RAM, trayless DVD-ROM, hard drive/flash disk), anyway, having spent $400 for the nano-ITX board, $175 for the DVD-ROM, and whatever the RAM cost (I had a spare drive) once I get an updated LC-08 case.
And what was preventing copyright holders from releasing videocassette sets of entire seasons when the Betamax decision was handed down?
No, I don't buy the argument that the ability to make one's own aggregate takes away from the copyright holder's right to exploit the aggregate of their copyright content: either you give me bits and pieces of stuff at one price (my watching ads and taking the time and effort to record each show), or another (the price for an ad-free aggregate). You can't say that, because the sum of the parts costs less than the whole, that I can't aggregate the parts to make my own whole. And the reason you can't is that you set the price on the parts.
That'd be like selling beer for $1 a bottle and $10 a six-pack and arguing that I can't buy six individual beers.
You think you have the right to kill your neighbor and anyone else if the police acting on behalf on the government confiscate your firearm?
I see the grandparent's point.
If the police try to violate your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and your neighbor does nothing to assist you, he is *part of the problem*.
Replace "police" with "foreign invading force", and you might see the point better. Frank, in this case, has to chose which side he's on.
It'd also help others from being apathetic when their elected representatives try to strip me of my rights -- in a democracy, the entire nation is responsible for the injustices it's elected government enforces against the individual. The problem with democracy as practiced today is that the electorate is not held responsible for it's choices.
And, I agree: under such circumstances, I should be at the mercy of anyone who might leave me to die.
The doctor has no obligation to help me, as I lie there dying.
If I am so foolish as to travel without (a) others having knowledge of my itinerary, (b) enter dangerous teritories without the means to defend my self, and (c) have no means to pay someone who offers to help me should I need help, I damn well deserve to die in such a situation.
Just because one encounters "bad luck" does not mean one can not mitigate its effects. That's the whole point of saving for a rainy day and purchasing insurance against rare, but devastating risks. In fact, the first instances of insurance were cases of mutual insurance: insureds agreeing to self-insure against a devastatic risk that each one of them faced on their own.
Make hay while the sun shines.
My family, though originally rather well off, came to Canada as WWII regugees, having lost everything, first to Nazis, and then Soviet communists. In those days, there was no hand out, no social safety net, nada. You either picked yourself up by the bootstraps, or you perished.
And, you know what? They worked hard, and by their own efforts eventually prospered enough to live a middle-class lifestyle. All that with no handouts, no help save their participation in a community of people in similar circumstances (mutual self-insurance). No damn universal healthcare either: you got a job, your employer provided health insurance. Life was good for them in the late 1950s to mid 1960s. The only "help" they got was a right to "come here and try".
Then, Trudeau starts shoving his brand of communism on the country. Suddenly, they're "the rich" that have to "help". After all, they're "fortunate" to have been born "well off".
Fuck that noise.
Work hard. Earn money. Kill those that try to
rob you. Yes, I liked it when I lived in Texas.
Two things you miss in your hypothetical situation are these: (1) Most U.S. states have "Good Sameritan laws": if one stops to assist one in need, and inadvertently causes more harm them good, they are immunue from civil liability. That's particulary important when offering medical assistance with limited medical knowledge (though many employers offer free Red Cross first aid training). (2) Without overly burdensome taxes, Americans tend to be extremely charitable. The current gulf coast hurricane mess has resulted in sufficient offers of temporary housing (i.e. "taking in a family") to probably house everyone affected (over a quarter million offers to date).
In Canada, I saw people living like rats, scrambling to eke out an existence, grabbing at whatever handouts they could get, and generally expecting those in dire straits to get assistance from the government.
No thank you. I pay my way, you pay yours. No onw shits on me here, when I hire a lawn care company and a houskeeper, for being "obscenely rich".
I can best be described as a pragmatic libertarian. While opposed to government programs funded via taxation, I do see the potential savings in large programs by virtue of their economies of scale. Thus, it might be possible that a government health care program could, in theory, offer good value for the money. If that were the case, compulsory participation wouldn't even be necessary -- there just wouldn't be a cheaper alternative.
However, governments being what they are, corruption and overhead conspire to overwhelm any possible economies of scale savings. The bottom line is that the difference between the taxes I pay in the U.S. vs. what I would pay in Canada (mostly since one can't file jointly with a spouse or deduct mortgage interest or property taxes) is far more than the best health insurance that money can buy in the U.S. Yet, the government-provided health coverage and service I can receive in Canada is abysmal, by comparison.
Canadian health care is bad value for the tax dollar. If the type of care that the difference in taxes could pay for in the U.S. were available in Canada, the pragmatist in me would have no reason to grumble. Alas, that is not the case.
But, as an anglo, my disdain was for all of Canada, and particularly the socialism in Quebec and BC. Alberta seamed O.K., but I never had the chance to live there.
I suggest you get professional help with your grief. The level of substitution you're showing isn't healthy.
Nah, I had the same degree disdain for Canada before he ever died (I had already left). The circumstances of his death just strengthened what I already believed.
When I moved from a suburb of Toronto to a suburb of Seattle, I had to take a drivers' test to get my Washington State license. Almost failed the eye test because I pronounced "Z" in a sequence of five letters and numbers as "zed".
Of course, when I moved to that suburb of Toronto from a suburb of Dallas, I once went into a convenience store, and, not finding where the cold soft drinks were, asked the manager, "Where do you keep the cold 20oz. Mountain Dews?". He acted as if he didn't understand, and it took me a while to realize that it was the "20oz." he didn't grok. I said "600 mills" (millilitres), and his face lit up in a fit of understanding.
CRA (the Canadian eqivalent of the IRS) was not amused, however, when I tried to file jointly with my wife.:-)
Dieing because one can not afford the medical treatment they need or becoming bankrupt after paying for it is no one's fault. It's bad luck.
Taking one's money, to ostensibly provide health care, and then failing to deliver what could otherwise be obtained in a free market with the funds taken, makes one worse off than if one were left alone. If one dies as a result, that is murder.
It would be one thing if the government offered health insurance, even subsidized it. But, to force people to pay for it with monies that could deliver the services promised far more effectively is barbaric.
My health insurance premiums are about US$14k a year, and that provides for gold-plated care (no lifetime max, no copays, etc.) I am married, with a "stay at home mom" for a wife. We file our taxes jointly. That is not possible in Canada. If a family like ours were to move from the U.S. to Canada, they would likely see their tax burden increase far more than what it would cost them to obtain this kind of health insurance (The working spouse would effectively file as single, with the approximae equivalent of an exemption for their spouse).
Trouble is, they wouldn't get the type of service or coverage it would pay for in the U.S.
you can always travel to the states and spend your own money for an emergency treatment.
Yes, if, after being so heavily taxed, you can afford to do so. With the fraction of taxes my father paid for "health care", he couldn't afford to do so.
If there wasn't a universal health care system, his taxes would have been lower, and he could have saved up the funds many times over to, as you say, "travel to the states and spend your own money". If he had that opportunity, and frittered his money away, then yes, his death would have been the result of his own incompetence (as well as a bit of bad luck to be so desperately ill in the first place).
But, the government denied him that opportunity. It took so much of his money "for health care", and then turned around and failed to deliver what, if he was not so tax-robbed, he could have obtained for himself. If you steal a diabetic's money, so they can't get to the pharmacy to purchase the insulin they need, and they die as a result, you have murdered them. And so it is with the Canadian government.
It is funny, though, with all this talk of "fairness" that the very rich in Canada, and politicians at the public's expense do retain the means to save their own lives with their own money. Clearly, "universal" Canadian healthcare is nothing but a murderous, fraudulent, sham.
A country where an individual can't spend their own money, after taxes, to save their own life, is barbaric.
A country who's Supreme Court agrees that to prevent someone from spending their own money for healthcare is unconstitutional, but can be overruled by the government's application of a constitutional "notwithstanding" clause is doubly barbaric.
I was born there. My father was murdered there by being tax-robbed of the funds needed to pay for the surgery to save his life so he'd be "guaranteed" the healthcare he didn't get. I want no part of such a society.
You know, the "average" German wasn't affected by the murder of six million plus Jews. Yeah, yeah, Godwin's law. When the "average" is more important than the individual, you have communism. Didn't work for Russia, won't work for Canada.
And, don't even dare to suggest that 75% of Canadians using ER services should see their doctor instead -- there's such a shortage, they probably can't find one. "Going to emergency" is a cultural ritual.
I wonder how many other Canadians are tax-murdered by the state on an annual basis, and why the fuck are almost all pro-Canada posters anonymous? 'Fraid to lose Karma, eh. Cowards, definately.
Yeah, right. Has it ever occured to you that when the priorities are on "the people", they are not on "the person".
The person can't save his money to buy the health insurance he needs (well, foreigners can, but citizens and landed immigrants can't) for "covered services". Instead, the person is taxed to provide health care for "the people", who then wait, and wait, and wait.
Even then, after paying the taxes to provide health care for "the people", if one has any money left over, it is still illegal to pay for coverage, or directly, for "covered services". See, that would be unfair to "the people".
So, instead of being to save your own money for the day when you might need to use it to save your own life, it gets taken away for "the people", and you die.
In the U.S., "We, the people" translates well to an aggregate of "I, a person". But, not so in Canada: there, the self-sufficient person is considered an enemy of "the people".
I second this. Get rid of as much stuff as you don't need or use. We encourage our kids to routinely give away slightly worn toys to the less fortunate, particularly when they are about to get new ones at birthdays and Christmas. Books are another area, particularly text, and reference books. Keep a few things of sentimental value, and ditch the rest. Who needs old reference books with the Internet at hand?
On the ripping media front, I'm struggling to build a thin MythTV client around an Via EPIA nano-ITX board in a Silverstone LC-08 case. Because Via changed the nano-ITX back-panel and power connector style and layout at the last minute, Silverstone is retooling the LC-08 case. Unfortunately, Via is now insisting on the use of a (temp switched, I think) fan in what was originally to be a fanless design (the whole point of me choosing it).
I have hundreds of CDs, VHS tapes, and DVDs, and the space they take up is annoying. In the mid-1980s I had a modern stereo cabinet designed and built (Oak and granite, trapezoidal, with an inverted trapezoidal top) to accomodate 240 CDs, 90 cassette tapes, with a shelf for an amp, and showing off the B&O 5500 components on the top, shock-mounted granite inlays.
It looks nice, but takes up lots of space in the family room, and is now full of media. It does nothing for the VHS tapes.
So, definately, rip, rip, rip, and store the original media in a cool, dry place. This goes for photos too: unless you're a serious photographer, digital cameras are great. Just keep backups. Yes, I still have my F2 and FT2 and a nice set of lenses. I just don't use it much anymore.
We're hardly at the point where I'd like to get to, but once you get started, getting rid of clutter is wonderful.
[commie] Government: illegal to pay a doctor to save your life as this is unfair to those who can not pay and have to wait their turn for government universal health care.
Supreme Court: Unconstitutional!
Government: Notwithstanding Clause!!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The U.S. government may, from time to time, shit on people's rights, regardless of the Bill of Rights. The Canadian federal and provincial governments do this with the blessing of the Canadian constitution that permits the trumping of the quasi-equivalent Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Who you gonna put more faith in? A government that has the power to do what it shouldn't, or a government that promises not to do what it can? Readers of my rants know the choice that I made.
It's not a question of SBC helping. It's a question of whether SBC (or other carrier) has financial obligations to China Telecom that could be garnished.
Scenario: I'm in U.S. and I'm calling a destination in China served by China Telecom and originated by Skype. China Telecom refuses to terminate the call. I sue China Telecom, in the U.S. for falsly advertising inbound telephone termination. I'm in the U.S. China Telecom interoperates with U.S. carriers. I thus have venue, and if successfull, the ability to collect - I get an order of garnishment against a U.S.-based carriers financial payments to China Telecom.
Some problems with this scenario are as follows: 1) Even if China Telecom has a business presence in the U.S., if I'm not interacting with that business presence (because Skype drops the call onto the POTS system in China), can I claim venue?
2-n) I'm sure there are many more. Like I said, IANAL, but it seamed like an interesting theoretical exercise.
IANAL either, but I can tell you that a snowball would have a better chance lasting in hell than Skype would have in winning such a suit.
I dunno.
Does China Telecom interoperate with U.S. LD carriers? And, if so, might there perhaps be grounds for a U.S.-based venue because China Telecom does business in the U.S.?
LD charges are distributed among carriers, and depending on how that is done, there may be China Telecom assets in the U.S. that could be siezed.
Yeah, it's a long shot, but I think a bit better than a snowball's chance in hell.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"Zee reason for your anxiety ist very simple, ja?. You zee, if you're ov average intelligenze (ignoring difference between mean, mode, and median, ja?, which, for normal distribution are same anyway, ach, where was I? Ah!) If you're ov average intelligenze, half of people dumber than you, yes?
They vote! You, realizing this, suffer great anxiety!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to the thread as a whole, but yes, primarily to the parent of your post.
As for new rights, I think that is excessive, though the courts would do well to reinterpret the rights we already have in light of modern technology.
Fair use generally means one can do anything with copyright material so long as it does not infringe on the copyright holder's right to profit from it's exploitation. Historically, this has meant one can't redistribute copies -- that's rather obvious -- and that is facilitated if one can't make copies. But, the latter is not a justification for the former. The Betamax decision shows that mere copying is not, by itself infringement of the copyright: what would the holder argue? That by having paid to see something, and retaining a copy I'm infringing on their right to sell me the same thing again? That's horseshit.
No, what they'd like to argue is that my retaining a copy prevents them from selling me a different thing, one of their copies. But your copyright on the television broadcast should not protect your right to profit from a subsequent sale of a DVD of the content to me: they're different things. It does protect you from my selling of such a DVD myself that I manufacture from your TV broadcast.
Such restrictions are possible, by contract, specifically by license, which is different than the protections offered by copyright. But a license requires offer and acceptance, which does not happen when I watch the TV, or program my VCR to record a program.
Of course, unscrupulous copyright holders would love to bind us ever more restrictively by license, and, if we accept, there is no recourse we'd have. Caveat emptor: what exactly are you buying when you buy that shiny DVD? Our mission should be to educate the lay persons as to exactly what they'd be giving up that they have so far taken for granted, if they are so foolish to accept such licenses.
Silverstone says they are retooling to make new LC08 (and LC07) cases to accomodate the nano-ITX board, and I'm waiting impatiently. Sadly, what was originally to be a fanless design won't be anymore, with Silverstone's new case: Via didn't like Silverstone's heat pipe instead of a fan, and nixed the idea for the retooled case, not giving it the "nano-ITX" moniker blessing if it didn't support a fan.
Why not just use a mini-ITX?
Two words: CN400 and VT1625.
The CN400 is an HDTV resolution equivalent to the old CLE266 MPEG2 decoder chip, and the VT1625 is an HDTV resolution RGB to YPbPr (i.e. component) encoder.
MythTV with hardware-assisted HDTV MPEG2 decoding on a fanless thin clint would have been 'da bomb'! (Well, O.K. "fanless" is starting to become a matter of opinion and "do I dare not hook it up and hack a heatpipe?", but still.)
There are miniITX boards with the CN400 (Commell makes one), and there are fanless mini-ITX solutions (Hush PC makes one, heatpipe-based, but alas it won't accomodate the Commell board, and is as expensive as it is good looking), but the two sets don't yet intersect, which is why I was pinning my hopes on the nano-ITX board.
There are already patches to CLE266 and VT1623 drivers to accomodate the CN400 and VT1625, so Myth on the thing looks like a slam-dunk.
I've already got the nano-ITX board, and an (early, and therefore useless) LC08 case, so, despite the fan issue, I'm likely to go ahead and build the thing (nano-ITX, 512MB RAM, trayless DVD-ROM, hard drive/flash disk), anyway, having spent $400 for the nano-ITX board, $175 for the DVD-ROM, and whatever the RAM cost (I had a spare drive) once I get an updated LC-08 case.
No, I don't buy the argument that the ability to make one's own aggregate takes away from the copyright holder's right to exploit the aggregate of their copyright content: either you give me bits and pieces of stuff at one price (my watching ads and taking the time and effort to record each show), or another (the price for an ad-free aggregate). You can't say that, because the sum of the parts costs less than the whole, that I can't aggregate the parts to make my own whole. And the reason you can't is that you set the price on the parts.
That'd be like selling beer for $1 a bottle and $10 a six-pack and arguing that I can't buy six individual beers.
I see the grandparent's point.
If the police try to violate your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and your neighbor does nothing to assist you, he is *part of the problem*.
Replace "police" with "foreign invading force", and you might see the point better. Frank, in this case, has to chose which side he's on.
It'd also help others from being apathetic when their elected representatives try to strip me of my rights -- in a democracy, the entire nation is responsible for the injustices it's elected government enforces against the individual. The problem with democracy as practiced today is that the electorate is not held responsible for it's choices.
At the time, "militia" refered to the aggregate of every adult male (or male over the age of 16, one of the two).
The doctor has no obligation to help me, as I lie there dying.
If I am so foolish as to travel without (a) others having knowledge of my itinerary, (b) enter dangerous teritories without the means to defend my self, and (c) have no means to pay someone who offers to help me should I need help, I damn well deserve to die in such a situation.
Just because one encounters "bad luck" does not mean one can not mitigate its effects. That's the whole point of saving for a rainy day and purchasing insurance against rare, but devastating risks. In fact, the first instances of insurance were cases of mutual insurance: insureds agreeing to self-insure against a devastatic risk that each one of them faced on their own.
Make hay while the sun shines.
My family, though originally rather well off, came to Canada as WWII regugees, having lost everything, first to Nazis, and then Soviet communists. In those days, there was no hand out, no social safety net, nada. You either picked yourself up by the bootstraps, or you perished.
And, you know what? They worked hard, and by their own efforts eventually prospered enough to live a middle-class lifestyle. All that with no handouts, no help save their participation in a community of people in similar circumstances (mutual self-insurance). No damn universal healthcare either: you got a job, your employer provided health insurance. Life was good for them in the late 1950s to mid 1960s. The only "help" they got was a right to "come here and try".
Then, Trudeau starts shoving his brand of communism on the country. Suddenly, they're "the rich" that have to "help". After all, they're "fortunate" to have been born "well off".
Fuck that noise.
Work hard. Earn money. Kill those that try to rob you. Yes, I liked it when I lived in Texas.
Two things you miss in your hypothetical situation are these: (1) Most U.S. states have "Good Sameritan laws": if one stops to assist one in need, and inadvertently causes more harm them good, they are immunue from civil liability. That's particulary important when offering medical assistance with limited medical knowledge (though many employers offer free Red Cross first aid training). (2) Without overly burdensome taxes, Americans tend to be extremely charitable. The current gulf coast hurricane mess has resulted in sufficient offers of temporary housing (i.e. "taking in a family") to probably house everyone affected (over a quarter million offers to date).
In Canada, I saw people living like rats, scrambling to eke out an existence, grabbing at whatever handouts they could get, and generally expecting those in dire straits to get assistance from the government.
No thank you. I pay my way, you pay yours. No onw shits on me here, when I hire a lawn care company and a houskeeper, for being "obscenely rich".
However, governments being what they are, corruption and overhead conspire to overwhelm any possible economies of scale savings. The bottom line is that the difference between the taxes I pay in the U.S. vs. what I would pay in Canada (mostly since one can't file jointly with a spouse or deduct mortgage interest or property taxes) is far more than the best health insurance that money can buy in the U.S. Yet, the government-provided health coverage and service I can receive in Canada is abysmal, by comparison.
Canadian health care is bad value for the tax dollar. If the type of care that the difference in taxes could pay for in the U.S. were available in Canada, the pragmatist in me would have no reason to grumble. Alas, that is not the case.
But, as an anglo, my disdain was for all of Canada, and particularly the socialism in Quebec and BC. Alberta seamed O.K., but I never had the chance to live there.
Nah, I had the same degree disdain for Canada before he ever died (I had already left). The circumstances of his death just strengthened what I already believed.
Quebec has stated its intent to do this, and has asked the Supreme Court to stay it's decision until it passes the legislation. The court has agreed.
Unless there is massive protest, that pretty much makes it a fait-acompli.
When I moved from a suburb of Toronto to a suburb of Seattle, I had to take a drivers' test to get my Washington State license. Almost failed the eye test because I pronounced "Z" in a sequence of five letters and numbers as "zed".
Of course, when I moved to that suburb of Toronto from a suburb of Dallas, I once went into a convenience store, and, not finding where the cold soft drinks were, asked the manager, "Where do you keep the cold 20oz. Mountain Dews?". He acted as if he didn't understand, and it took me a while to realize that it was the "20oz." he didn't grok. I said "600 mills" (millilitres), and his face lit up in a fit of understanding.
CRA (the Canadian eqivalent of the IRS) was not amused, however, when I tried to file jointly with my wife. :-)
Dieing because one can not afford the medical treatment they need or becoming bankrupt after paying for it is no one's fault. It's bad luck.
Taking one's money, to ostensibly provide health care, and then failing to deliver what could otherwise be obtained in a free market with the funds taken, makes one worse off than if one were left alone. If one dies as a result, that is murder.
It would be one thing if the government offered health insurance, even subsidized it. But, to force people to pay for it with monies that could deliver the services promised far more effectively is barbaric.
My health insurance premiums are about US$14k a year, and that provides for gold-plated care (no lifetime max, no copays, etc.) I am married, with a "stay at home mom" for a wife. We file our taxes jointly. That is not possible in Canada. If a family like ours were to move from the U.S. to Canada, they would likely see their tax burden increase far more than what it would cost them to obtain this kind of health insurance (The working spouse would effectively file as single, with the approximae equivalent of an exemption for their spouse).
Trouble is, they wouldn't get the type of service or coverage it would pay for in the U.S.
Yes, if, after being so heavily taxed, you can afford to do so. With the fraction of taxes my father paid for "health care", he couldn't afford to do so.
If there wasn't a universal health care system, his taxes would have been lower, and he could have saved up the funds many times over to, as you say, "travel to the states and spend your own money". If he had that opportunity, and frittered his money away, then yes, his death would have been the result of his own incompetence (as well as a bit of bad luck to be so desperately ill in the first place).
But, the government denied him that opportunity. It took so much of his money "for health care", and then turned around and failed to deliver what, if he was not so tax-robbed, he could have obtained for himself. If you steal a diabetic's money, so they can't get to the pharmacy to purchase the insulin they need, and they die as a result, you have murdered them. And so it is with the Canadian government.
It is funny, though, with all this talk of "fairness" that the very rich in Canada, and politicians at the public's expense do retain the means to save their own lives with their own money. Clearly, "universal" Canadian healthcare is nothing but a murderous, fraudulent, sham.
If you don't like it here, "go home". Like the Yanks say, "Love it or leave it."
Hmm, here I am, a Canadian citizen, struggling to escape a society I hate, effectively prefering to be stateless, and I'm jealous?
A country who's Supreme Court agrees that to prevent someone from spending their own money for healthcare is unconstitutional, but can be overruled by the government's application of a constitutional "notwithstanding" clause is doubly barbaric.
I was born there. My father was murdered there by being tax-robbed of the funds needed to pay for the surgery to save his life so he'd be "guaranteed" the healthcare he didn't get. I want no part of such a society.
You know, the "average" German wasn't affected by the murder of six million plus Jews. Yeah, yeah, Godwin's law. When the "average" is more important than the individual, you have communism. Didn't work for Russia, won't work for Canada.
And, don't even dare to suggest that 75% of Canadians using ER services should see their doctor instead -- there's such a shortage, they probably can't find one. "Going to emergency" is a cultural ritual.
I wonder how many other Canadians are tax-murdered by the state on an annual basis, and why the fuck are almost all pro-Canada posters anonymous? 'Fraid to lose Karma, eh. Cowards, definately.
The person can't save his money to buy the health insurance he needs (well, foreigners can, but citizens and landed immigrants can't) for "covered services". Instead, the person is taxed to provide health care for "the people", who then wait, and wait, and wait.
Even then, after paying the taxes to provide health care for "the people", if one has any money left over, it is still illegal to pay for coverage, or directly, for "covered services". See, that would be unfair to "the people".
So, instead of being to save your own money for the day when you might need to use it to save your own life, it gets taken away for "the people", and you die.
In the U.S., "We, the people" translates well to an aggregate of "I, a person". But, not so in Canada: there, the self-sufficient person is considered an enemy of "the people".
On the ripping media front, I'm struggling to build a thin MythTV client around an Via EPIA nano-ITX board in a Silverstone LC-08 case. Because Via changed the nano-ITX back-panel and power connector style and layout at the last minute, Silverstone is retooling the LC-08 case. Unfortunately, Via is now insisting on the use of a (temp switched, I think) fan in what was originally to be a fanless design (the whole point of me choosing it).
I have hundreds of CDs, VHS tapes, and DVDs, and the space they take up is annoying. In the mid-1980s I had a modern stereo cabinet designed and built (Oak and granite, trapezoidal, with an inverted trapezoidal top) to accomodate 240 CDs, 90 cassette tapes, with a shelf for an amp, and showing off the B&O 5500 components on the top, shock-mounted granite inlays.
It looks nice, but takes up lots of space in the family room, and is now full of media. It does nothing for the VHS tapes.
So, definately, rip, rip, rip, and store the original media in a cool, dry place. This goes for photos too: unless you're a serious photographer, digital cameras are great. Just keep backups. Yes, I still have my F2 and FT2 and a nice set of lenses. I just don't use it much anymore.
We're hardly at the point where I'd like to get to, but once you get started, getting rid of clutter is wonderful.
My first thought after RTA was, "Ah! This is an interesting use of the word 'protect' with which I'm not familiar" (with appologies to Douglas Adams).
Not With Standing.
[commie] Government: illegal to pay a doctor to save your life as this is unfair to those who can not pay and have to wait their turn for government universal health care.
Supreme Court: Unconstitutional!
Government: Notwithstanding Clause!!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The U.S. government may, from time to time, shit on people's rights, regardless of the Bill of Rights. The Canadian federal and provincial governments do this with the blessing of the Canadian constitution that permits the trumping of the quasi-equivalent Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Who you gonna put more faith in? A government that has the power to do what it shouldn't, or a government that promises not to do what it can? Readers of my rants know the choice that I made.
Scenario: I'm in U.S. and I'm calling a destination in China served by China Telecom and originated by Skype. China Telecom refuses to terminate the call. I sue China Telecom, in the U.S. for falsly advertising inbound telephone termination. I'm in the U.S. China Telecom interoperates with U.S. carriers. I thus have venue, and if successfull, the ability to collect - I get an order of garnishment against a U.S.-based carriers financial payments to China Telecom.
Some problems with this scenario are as follows: 1) Even if China Telecom has a business presence in the U.S., if I'm not interacting with that business presence (because Skype drops the call onto the POTS system in China), can I claim venue? 2-n) I'm sure there are many more. Like I said, IANAL, but it seamed like an interesting theoretical exercise.
I dunno.
Does China Telecom interoperate with U.S. LD carriers? And, if so, might there perhaps be grounds for a U.S.-based venue because China Telecom does business in the U.S.?
LD charges are distributed among carriers, and depending on how that is done, there may be China Telecom assets in the U.S. that could be siezed.
Yeah, it's a long shot, but I think a bit better than a snowball's chance in hell.
Hear, hear!
"Zee reason for your anxiety ist very simple, ja?. You zee, if you're ov average intelligenze (ignoring difference between mean, mode, and median, ja?, which, for normal distribution are same anyway, ach, where was I? Ah!) If you're ov average intelligenze, half of people dumber than you, yes?
They vote! You, realizing this, suffer great anxiety!