Anyone who practices medicine probably has a pretty good understanding of malpractice insurance.
Unfortunately not true at all. Doctors have a tendency to think that because they know one field they know everything.
Medical care is one of the cases where liability costs make up a significant portion of the cost of the product. Another is ladders. Look into it.
This is a big scam the insurance companies have gotten you and a lot of other people into believing. The facts are that those states that have caps on malpractice payouts tend to have higher insurance rates, Rates have skyrocketed in recent years, but the amount of malpractice litigation has stayed flat, and the average amount of payout has increased only slightly. But it's easier for the insurance companies to just blame the lawyers than to actually open their books and reveal just where the increased money has gone.
Most people who lost their savings in Enron for instance, were not aware their retirement hinging on the profitability of one company, was not a secure portfolio.
Well obviously the non-Enron employees didn't invest all their money in one company; pension plans are like mutual funds, they're pretty diverse.
The Enron employees were locked into buying Enron stock by their 401(k) agreements. They couldn't diversify, even if they wanted to.
But certainly do no blame Dell and do not blame your Cable provider as they aren't at fault.
I think Dell and your ISP can shoulder at least some of the blame. Remember, for the majority of people who buy from Dell, Dell configures the operating system for them and they don't change it.
Your ISP probably can't be blamed for spyware, but they sure as hell deserve some of the blame for spam, the large ones at least.
Why are evolutionsts so defensive about their theory?
Because they believe strongly in it, and find it puzzling why people would dispute it. If there was a large movement in the US to label the earth as flat in school textbooks the astronomers would just as vehemently react.
But the basic idea that if someone defends something energetically then they're hiding something is just bizarre. It makes no sense. And it's a pretty open field, you can just pick up a geology textbook and see why they say what they do. As a field it's not especially incomprehensible to the layman.
Have you ever honestly looked at the evidence for a global flood of immense proportions?
It doesn't matter how breezy you try to sound, no matter how subtly you try to use sarcasm, no matter how condescending you are, you still come out looking like a jackass. You don't understand what a theory is, apparently. It doesn't mean "an unproven assertion", you know. Well, you don't know, I guess.
Facts is all they is!!!! Especially don't look behind the curtain of theory, because it requires being an expert to look behind the theory without going crazy!!!!!!!!
No, not really, it's actually a pretty simple idea that can be communicated quite easily. What part do you have problems with exactly?
Theory, schmeory. 2000 people were offended that a theory is being used by textbook writers to impose a new religion on the kids. Seven were offended by the use of a sticker to bring a little balance into the discussion. The court sides with no balance in the discussion.
Stupidity isn't a point of view. It's just stupidity.
What it all boils down to is that you're scared. The idea that life arose over billions of years, that you're just an inconsequential speck of carbon lost in unimaginable space and time just frightens the hell out of you. And you know, it IS kind of scary, but unfortunately it's reality. And denying it isn't especially productive. Try to have just a little bit of courage, mmkay? Just a tad?
What products do they make? What value do they add to society? Thing is a lot of those people are rent-seekers. They don't make anything but parasitize those who do.
What exactly do YOU produce now? Unless you're a farmer, a tailor, or work in a factory you probably shouldn't throw stones.
How, exactly, were they "causing a disturbance"? Some people laughed? I mean, what exactly is the First Amendment about again? Did they yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I think not!
Well, you weren't there, so you don't know exactly how they were acting. The jokes were probably not the cause of their arrest, it was the disturbance part. Considering they were there explicitly to cause a disturbance, they were probably breaking the law.
Or do you think that someone can just come up to you, start making lawyer jokes, and punch you in the face? Just because one action is protected speech doesn't mean that any parallel actions are protected as well.
Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way.
Exactly, and especially considering they were part of an legal "reform" group and were specifically there to cause a disturbance, they shouldn't be surprised when they have to face the consequences.
Well the only way to avoid duplicate stories would be to have some sort of way to, via some sort of computer automation, examine old stories and see if they had certain key words in common, some sort of "search engine" to coin a phrase. Obviously that would be impossible at our current level of technology, but one can hope for the future.
Well if everything you've said is true (which unfortunately I'm not sure it is), then that's nice that you think you'd rather die than accept help. If you were actually put in that situation I think you'd probably change your tune.
By the way, you're not being "robbed", taxation is not theft, no matter how much you want to think it is. And that 18% wouldn't cover necessary services that you'd have to buy without the government.
If I had a choice between either accepting help from others or dying, I'd accept the help. Hell, if I had a choice between either dying or robbing someone to survive, then they'd better damn well hand over their wallets.
Actually, I'd prefer to live in a society where success and even survival is determined on individual merit.
And you're assuming that you personally have the skills to survive any sort of situation. And what if your environment changed sufficiently that you no longer could survive on your own? You wouldn't resent having to die? Well of course you would, if you said anything different you're a liar.
Oh, you're white and middle class or higher and have had just about everything in your life handed to you? What a surprise.
Step 1: Demand a policy of inflationary government fiscal programs and a welfare state. Step 2: Watch as your wages go up, but ability to compete in an international labor market plummets. Step 3: Complain when companies do the rational thing and opt for cheaper labor. Step 4: Mock someone for trying to better themselves because you're bitter and unable to compete for wage rates.
5. Suddenly realize that the countries where the cheap labor is obtained tend to be socialist and have much more inflationary fiscal programs and a much more extensive welfare state. 6. Realize that in that context the four things you listed first make you look ignorant.
Well I meant flat as in terms of detail and interactivity. The Nile River delta was one of the most fertile places on the planet at the time of the ancient Egyptians, but aside from a few trees and grasses we didn't see much. Where were the animals? The fish? Birds?
Many people I know love to play Age of Empires-- until the fighting starts. Most just like to build. And they get attached to their little characters, too! Just look at the popularity of the sims, if you need an example.
While I enjoy combat games as much as the next person, after a while they do get kind of old. Maybe I just don't like spending hours carefully constructing a beautiful city only to have a bunch of Hittites ride in and burn it to the ground.
I liked A Tale in the Desert's premise, but I think they made it a little too repetitive, and the terrain was a little flat and featureless.
I hope this goes in, otherwise people might be so desperate for entertainment they may read a book or listen to music or just look at the window and think to themselves.
The industry set a milestone last month when Microsoft's Halo 2 -- a sequel to a futuristic game with an elaborate plot that pits humans against invading aliens
Thanks for the explanation, always a good idea to explain obscure references like "Halo".
No computer today, no matter how well programmed, is as self-aware as a house fly. We don't grant flies legal rights.
The whole point of the article, if you had bothered to read it, was that in THE FUTURE we might have to deal with this issue. Are you intentionally misinterpreting the article so you have an excuse to be contemptuous?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who practices medicine probably has a pretty good understanding of malpractice insurance.
Unfortunately not true at all. Doctors have a tendency to think that because they know one field they know everything.
Medical care is one of the cases where liability costs make up a significant portion of the cost of the product. Another is ladders. Look into it.
This is a big scam the insurance companies have gotten you and a lot of other people into believing. The facts are that those states that have caps on malpractice payouts tend to have higher insurance rates, Rates have skyrocketed in recent years, but the amount of malpractice litigation has stayed flat, and the average amount of payout has increased only slightly. But it's easier for the insurance companies to just blame the lawyers than to actually open their books and reveal just where the increased money has gone.
Most people who lost their savings in Enron for instance, were not aware their retirement hinging on the profitability of one company, was not a secure portfolio.
Well obviously the non-Enron employees didn't invest all their money in one company; pension plans are like mutual funds, they're pretty diverse.
The Enron employees were locked into buying Enron stock by their 401(k) agreements. They couldn't diversify, even if they wanted to.
As such, I've often pondered what society will do when we've unlocked the secrets of the mind. Now I know...
I already knew before. The next step is to research Ethical Calculus and Doctrine: Loyalty. Come on people, you have tech trees, use them.
How about something that hasn't been done before?
Like poking a badger with a spoon?
But certainly do no blame Dell and do not blame your Cable provider as they aren't at fault.
I think Dell and your ISP can shoulder at least some of the blame. Remember, for the majority of people who buy from Dell, Dell configures the operating system for them and they don't change it.
Your ISP probably can't be blamed for spyware, but they sure as hell deserve some of the blame for spam, the large ones at least.
And yet according to the lawyers, if I make one mistake, my entire liveleyhood is "up for grabs".
That's what "insurance" is for. Look into it.
But who sues the lawyers when THEY screw up? And everyone screws up - to err is human...
The people who are damaged by their screwing up. You didn't think lawyers couldn't be sued for malpractice, did you? Happens a lot.
This is an excellent point.
No it's not.
Why are evolutionsts so defensive about their theory?
Because they believe strongly in it, and find it puzzling why people would dispute it. If there was a large movement in the US to label the earth as flat in school textbooks the astronomers would just as vehemently react.
But the basic idea that if someone defends something energetically then they're hiding something is just bizarre. It makes no sense. And it's a pretty open field, you can just pick up a geology textbook and see why they say what they do. As a field it's not especially incomprehensible to the layman.
Have you ever honestly looked at the evidence for a global flood of immense proportions?
Yes.
It's scary.
Not really.
My, my, how reasonable you sound.
It doesn't matter how breezy you try to sound, no matter how subtly you try to use sarcasm, no matter how condescending you are, you still come out looking like a jackass. You don't understand what a theory is, apparently. It doesn't mean "an unproven assertion", you know. Well, you don't know, I guess.
Facts is all they is!!!! Especially don't look behind the curtain of theory, because it requires being an expert to look behind the theory without going crazy!!!!!!!!
No, not really, it's actually a pretty simple idea that can be communicated quite easily. What part do you have problems with exactly?
Theory, schmeory. 2000 people were offended that a theory is being used by textbook writers to impose a new religion on the kids. Seven were offended by the use of a sticker to bring a little balance into the discussion. The court sides with no balance in the discussion.
Stupidity isn't a point of view. It's just stupidity.
What it all boils down to is that you're scared. The idea that life arose over billions of years, that you're just an inconsequential speck of carbon lost in unimaginable space and time just frightens the hell out of you. And you know, it IS kind of scary, but unfortunately it's reality. And denying it isn't especially productive. Try to have just a little bit of courage, mmkay? Just a tad?
What products do they make? What value do they add to society? Thing is a lot of those people are rent-seekers. They don't make anything but parasitize those who do.
What exactly do YOU produce now? Unless you're a farmer, a tailor, or work in a factory you probably shouldn't throw stones.
How, exactly, were they "causing a disturbance"? Some people laughed? I mean, what exactly is the First Amendment about again? Did they yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? I think not!
Well, you weren't there, so you don't know exactly how they were acting. The jokes were probably not the cause of their arrest, it was the disturbance part. Considering they were there explicitly to cause a disturbance, they were probably breaking the law.
Or do you think that someone can just come up to you, start making lawyer jokes, and punch you in the face? Just because one action is protected speech doesn't mean that any parallel actions are protected as well.
Each of these people will, of course, spin the event their way.
Exactly, and especially considering they were part of an legal "reform" group and were specifically there to cause a disturbance, they shouldn't be surprised when they have to face the consequences.
Well the only way to avoid duplicate stories would be to have some sort of way to, via some sort of computer automation, examine old stories and see if they had certain key words in common, some sort of "search engine" to coin a phrase. Obviously that would be impossible at our current level of technology, but one can hope for the future.
from the dawn of time the climate has been changing! what makes them think it shouldn't now?
Like, I know, and look at all those particle physicists writing papers about atomic reactions that have been changing from the dawn of time.
Hint: find out the difference between climate and weather. Differentiating between the two is what the climatologists are trying to do here.
Well if everything you've said is true (which unfortunately I'm not sure it is), then that's nice that you think you'd rather die than accept help. If you were actually put in that situation I think you'd probably change your tune.
By the way, you're not being "robbed", taxation is not theft, no matter how much you want to think it is. And that 18% wouldn't cover necessary services that you'd have to buy without the government.
If I had a choice between either accepting help from others or dying, I'd accept the help. Hell, if I had a choice between either dying or robbing someone to survive, then they'd better damn well hand over their wallets.
Actually, I'd prefer to live in a society where success and even survival is determined on individual merit.
And you're assuming that you personally have the skills to survive any sort of situation. And what if your environment changed sufficiently that you no longer could survive on your own? You wouldn't resent having to die? Well of course you would, if you said anything different you're a liar.
Oh, you're white and middle class or higher and have had just about everything in your life handed to you? What a surprise.
Step 1: Demand a policy of inflationary government fiscal programs and a welfare state. Step 2: Watch as your wages go up, but ability to compete in an international labor market plummets. Step 3: Complain when companies do the rational thing and opt for cheaper labor. Step 4: Mock someone for trying to better themselves because you're bitter and unable to compete for wage rates.
5. Suddenly realize that the countries where the cheap labor is obtained tend to be socialist and have much more inflationary fiscal programs and a much more extensive welfare state. 6. Realize that in that context the four things you listed first make you look ignorant.
Hey, we like to pitch our tents in scenic areas! Lifeless deserts are boring.
Well I meant flat as in terms of detail and interactivity. The Nile River delta was one of the most fertile places on the planet at the time of the ancient Egyptians, but aside from a few trees and grasses we didn't see much. Where were the animals? The fish? Birds?
Many people I know love to play Age of Empires-- until the fighting starts. Most just like to build. And they get attached to their little characters, too! Just look at the popularity of the sims, if you need an example.
While I enjoy combat games as much as the next person, after a while they do get kind of old. Maybe I just don't like spending hours carefully constructing a beautiful city only to have a bunch of Hittites ride in and burn it to the ground.
I liked A Tale in the Desert's premise, but I think they made it a little too repetitive, and the terrain was a little flat and featureless.
Or they leaked it with the intent of suing and creating a big fuss over it.
Nah, this has "Steve Jobs tantrum" written all over it. They guy flies into a rage whenever something like this happens.
Yes, slashdot, it's possible to believe in God and science without being a damned fundie that makes my faith look bad.
Yes, it is possible, but intelligent design isn't the way to do it. ID directly contradicts natural selection.
I hope this goes in, otherwise people might be so desperate for entertainment they may read a book or listen to music or just look at the window and think to themselves.
That would be just horrible.
The industry set a milestone last month when Microsoft's Halo 2 -- a sequel to a futuristic game with an elaborate plot that pits humans against invading aliens
Thanks for the explanation, always a good idea to explain obscure references like "Halo".
No computer today, no matter how well programmed, is as self-aware as a house fly. We don't grant flies legal rights.
The whole point of the article, if you had bothered to read it, was that in THE FUTURE we might have to deal with this issue. Are you intentionally misinterpreting the article so you have an excuse to be contemptuous?
I suppose the rest of the country thinks that most of Louisiana is swampland full of hicks
Pretty much.