I think health insurance is for everyone, because the risk of having expensive health problems exists for just about everyone, especially if health issues due to accidents are included. This is similar to automobile insurance - everyone who drives carries insurance, not just the bad drivers.
Health insurance is not at all like the required automobile insurance. Everyone is required to buy liability insurance for their car. Everyone must insure against the damage he does with the vehicle, not damage done to the vehicle. So the equivalent of the required automobile insurance is personal liability insurance, which is not required.
The justification for the health insurance mandate is that society isn't willing to let the uninsured die. Society is willing to let the uninsured go carless.
I think it would be pretty interesting to feed the writing of a dead person into a program and then talk to it. I'm sure people would pay to chat with their late grandmother. But also, what does George Washington think about Middle East policy?
I'm skeptical of the article's claims but this is at least a good science fiction idea.
Sadly, I saw a few people become cocaine addicts because of drug testing. Their employers started testing, so they switched from pot to crack, They're all now homeless, but finctioned in society fine with pot.
I think it's unfair to blame testing for their choice to use crack, as if they had no choice but to use illegal drugs.
It's a sad day when you can't trust extortionist to make good on their threats. Where's the pride in their craft? Where's the work ethic? Society is in decline.
What the FBI cannot do is force a company to do something that will cause it irreparable harm and devalue its entire business model. Forcing Apple to produce this code goes against Apple's right to be free of unreasonable seizures, as the FBI would in effect be seizing 80% of the value of the company, if not more, to get a backdoor into all iPhones.
I disagree with this reasoning. A business doesn't have an inalienable right to make money. If I run a child pornography store, the government can, will, and should force me to stop it, even if it will devalue its entire business model. If the business model is contrary to law, it's sucks to be that business.
I can support Apple's right to deny the FBI based on other principles, but certainly not because it will hurt their stockholders.
And the cuts may just be starting: one activist investor (SpringOwl) says the total number of employees should be closer to 3,000 for a company with its revenue.
Why would anyone think there's a constant proper relationship between revenue and the number of employees across all businesses? I mean, let's just skip right over that employees are paid different amounts, businesses take different amount of human effort to create the wealth, the market will support different prices for different services, and the business will have a different amounts necessary to pay their vendors and capital requirements.
Suppose I have a farm business. One year I decide to spin-off the part of the company that picks the tomatoes. The previous company suddenly has much more revenue per employee. Should it go out and hire more people? The tomato picking company has little revenue per employee. Should the tomato picking company fire a bunch of people. Of course not.
A "calorie" is a depreciated unit of measurement for energy. You don't eat calories, you eat food, and this food is digested and burned (producing CO2) which releases energy. When the amount of food you eat surpasses your need it is "stored" in the form of fat inducing your overweight. The reasoning of measuring energy is that an excess of food with high energy (sugars, fats) release will induce overweight because the way the body accumulates its carbohydrates in the form of fat, but it is a very complex process. Anyway energy is not a thing and does not have mass, therefore there is no sense in thinking that "x calories equals y grams of mass", at least not directly.
In fact physicists, not physicians, and engineers measure energy in Joule units, which should be used for anything energy related, and some countries -New Zealand, I guess- post the nutrition facts in J/g as it should be.
A calorie is 4.2 joules. Multiplying by a constant isn't something to get bent about. -Eating food not calories- is some sort of bizarre, vacuous straw man. This is obvious and useless. Food *has* an energy content. Not is. Has. Who is confused about this?
J/g is a perfectly fine way to measure energy density for a person who knows what a Joule and a gram are. But it's not more proper or righteous than other ways to measure it.
The supreme court isn't supposed to just make shit up. The US Constitution (during prohibition) included the 18th amendment: ---- Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. --- So, yeah, Congress had the explicit legal power to prohibit alcohol.
If you don't think the second amendment is a good idea in the modern world, you should lobby for its repeal, not pretend it says something other than it says.
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2â"53.
(a) The Amendmentâ(TM)s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauseâ(TM)s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2â"22.
If Obama attempts to label this as a "homegrown" terrorist, it truly conveys that he has NO grip on the situation at all, and is only looking to monopolize on the situation to further his agenda and gain political favors and to further "his legacy".
What do you mean by monopolize here? Do you maybe mean capitalize?
Slashdot Mirror
Health insurance is not at all like the required automobile insurance. Everyone is required to buy liability insurance for their car. Everyone must insure against the damage he does with the vehicle, not damage done to the vehicle. So the equivalent of the required automobile insurance is personal liability insurance, which is not required.
The justification for the health insurance mandate is that society isn't willing to let the uninsured die. Society is willing to let the uninsured go carless.
Here's a boring answer. Yes. Why the fuck not?
Right, password girth is the key.
"Trump appeals to all denominators"
I don't think you get the metaphor "lowest common denominator".
I think it would be pretty interesting to feed the writing of a dead person into a program and then talk to it. I'm sure people would pay to chat with their late grandmother. But also, what does George Washington think about Middle East policy?
I'm skeptical of the article's claims but this is at least a good science fiction idea.
There's definitely a trend toward robots.
But I don't even have a robot to mow my lawn, one of the easier tasks to automate. There's a lot of physical work to do.
I think it's unfair to blame testing for their choice to use crack, as if they had no choice but to use illegal drugs.
As evidence, he produced a calendar signed with a Mayan private key.
Your list criticizes some for being poor leaders and others because they can't win. That doesn't make the field weak; it makes the voters stupid.
It's a sad day when you can't trust extortionist to make good on their threats. Where's the pride in their craft? Where's the work ethic? Society is in decline.
+1, Inspirational
I disagree with this reasoning. A business doesn't have an inalienable right to make money. If I run a child pornography store, the government can, will, and should force me to stop it, even if it will devalue its entire business model. If the business model is contrary to law, it's sucks to be that business.
I can support Apple's right to deny the FBI based on other principles, but certainly not because it will hurt their stockholders.
81% of robot cars felt unsafe with human drivers.
How else do you think it will keep its antivirus software up-to-date?
Anthropic Principle
We tend not to observe universes in which life is impossible.
Excellent news. Thank you.
Wait, do you mean my left or yours?
Why would anyone think there's a constant proper relationship between revenue and the number of employees across all businesses? I mean, let's just skip right over that employees are paid different amounts, businesses take different amount of human effort to create the wealth, the market will support different prices for different services, and the business will have a different amounts necessary to pay their vendors and capital requirements.
Suppose I have a farm business. One year I decide to spin-off the part of the company that picks the tomatoes. The previous company suddenly has much more revenue per employee. Should it go out and hire more people? The tomato picking company has little revenue per employee. Should the tomato picking company fire a bunch of people. Of course not.
A calorie is 4.2 joules. Multiplying by a constant isn't something to get bent about. -Eating food not calories- is some sort of bizarre, vacuous straw man. This is obvious and useless. Food *has* an energy content. Not is. Has. Who is confused about this?
J/g is a perfectly fine way to measure energy density for a person who knows what a Joule and a gram are. But it's not more proper or righteous than other ways to measure it.
This strikes me as an extremely difficult task, assuming the tolerance for losing meaning is low. Maybe IBM Watson work applies.
o1D 7EÃ 812#P7E2 ezD1+ w#yN1 `C 8zN`B1FÃZ nÃyN 9r#Ã 1`N 2eV5%Ã weV7NÃ y71Gx%P `C jx#P`Mx#ÃÃ ?
The supreme court isn't supposed to just make shit up. The US Constitution (during prohibition) included the 18th amendment:
----
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
---
So, yeah, Congress had the explicit legal power to prohibit alcohol.
If you don't think the second amendment is a good idea in the modern world, you should lobby for its repeal, not pretend it says something other than it says.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
. . .
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2â"53.
(a) The Amendmentâ(TM)s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauseâ(TM)s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2â"22.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
What do you mean by monopolize here? Do you maybe mean capitalize?