Interesting. I've always found the FBI warnings annoying, but not terrible, and haven't found a DVD that I couldn't somehow get through the previews quickly: if the menu button doesn't work, the skip or fast forward buttons usually do. But the issue isn't merely avoidance, it's annoyance... you're paying for a DVD and your reward is the annoyance, whereas people who've ripped the content or obtained it illegally are often free from such annoyances.
I don't know what the problem is... the video game industry learned a long time ago that code wheels and word or number lookups just encouraged people to crack the games... it seems sad everyone has to go through the same painful lesson of what happens when you annoy paying customers while the "pirates" get unfettered content for free.
It's already written into the bill... they need a REALLY good reason to suspect you; they are not allowed to "suspect" you do to skin color, race, or country of origin...
Now proving what their suspicion was in court may be difficult, but you'd better believe it'll be the first question out of the court appointed lawyer's mouth.
Moreover... they can't just ask you for no reason, there has to be reasonable suspicion, and on top of that, it's already written into the bill that they must obey existing law: skin color, race, or country of origin is NOT acceptable for reason of suspicion.
The reaction to this bill is WAY overblown; it's pretty ridiculous... as pointed out, it's not even a new law regarding immigration, it's a new law to simply encourage enforcement.
I know some of you want us to just take everybody that strolls in, but right now there's a legal process to do it.
On top of all that, they won't even necessarily arrest you... if you give them your information they can look you up.
Except you have to pay more and be saddled with those glasses for no benefit at all, probably just so can go see it with your friends or family.
It is a gimmick, but it's a gimmick whose time has come. They tried it in the 50's with red/cyan anaglyph; they tried it in the late 70's and early 80's with polarization (Jaws 3 in 3D, Friday the 13th part 3). It makes sense... but not in the gimmicky way in which people are still doing it - throwing things out of the screen at you; gratuitous stuff that they wouldn't have put in a 2D movie just for effect... these are things they do to try to compensate for the crappy movies they've been releasing.
But it's like special effects... new techniques get over used as compensation for lack of a good story; they make movies just to do the special effects instead of using the special effects to make a good movie... but we're getting past that, now... special effects are so integrated in with some really great movies, you can't even tell sometimes, and it becomes more rare as time goes on for special effects to be the movie instead of adding to it.
The same will happen with 3D... I really like 3D, and someday it'll be beautiful picture in 3D and you won't even notice, it'll just be one more thing to help bring you into the environment.
But that day hasn't come yet, and right now, after seeing a number of movies in 3D (and, in fact, doing a lot of research into stereoscopic 3D graphics while in university), I'm just not going to pay the extra. They'll get better, and every once in a while I'll give it a whirl, but 3D is not a selling point to me yet.
Yeah, some people do... but by requiring proper labeling, they're not dictating your behavior. They're requiring a certain behavior from the companies, but not telling them how to make their products... just truthfully tell us what's in them.
So, I can see both sides, but I don't consider that so much to be a "nanny-state" complaint.
Agreed... I have no one to blame but myself. It's not society's fault; it's not McDonald's fault (although I don't eat there anyway, but you get the idea).
I'm a work-a-holic right now, have two kids to chauffeur around, and don't take the time to eat right and exercise. When I make a conceivable schedule for a day and squeeze in proper meals and a workout around work and kids, my wife asks "where am I on your list?" It just doesn't all fit. But it's my choice, I just choose to continue taking my kids to the things that I hope will help keep them from getting this way (sports and dance classes).
But I know it's my choice and I know I'm taking the easy way out when I eat junk.
Right... so you want to use the power of government to FORCE restaurants to serve people what you think they should be serving?
Here are your options: 1. restaurant doesn't offer low sodium products, so you don't go there. 2. seek restaurants that offer low-sodium versions of some of their products where it makes sense. 3. use government force on private company to behave the way you want them to, whether or not other people want choices.
The link was to an article about a assemblyman who wants to BAN salts in NY, and cut salts in manufactured products.
This is not the same as requiring proper and correct food labeling.
When people complain about the nanny-state, they aren't complaining about companies having to tell you, correctly, what's in their products, it's when the state says you can't do something as opposed to making the decision yourself based on correct labeling.
I have to laugh, because I don't give a flying leap about my credit report. Not all of us are that stupid to get ourselves buried in debt, and those that did have no one to blame but themselves... certainly not the "gummint."
The "right" to healthcare has always been a right, actually. Nobody would ever stop you from seeking healthcare; and I would say it was "right" by the tenth amendment.
But, like all rights enumerated in the constitution, it's a negative one. I have the right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to force someone to give (or even sell) me a gun. I have the right to free speech, but I don't have the right to force a newspaper to print my opinions, or to force a radio station to give me air time. Healthcare is, IMO, the exact same way... it is a right, it always has been, and it's a negative right.
If someone wants it enshrined in the constitution, it would logically read something like "the right to seek healthcare shall not be infringed."
I don't think those things make us safe, and they don't make me feel safe at all.
Life has risks; you drive down the street, you are risking your life. You take a shower, you are risking your life (more accidents in the home happen in the shower/bathtub than anywhere else).
The whole "if it saves just one life" mantra is complete nonsense. Tell you what, if you didn't drive to the movie theater, you wouldn't be putting your life at risk. If only one person has died driving to a movie, such a frivolous thing to die for, then wouldn't it be worth banning driving for non-essential frivolities? Sounds stupid, but you're more likely to be struck by lightening than killed by a terrorist, and that was true before AND after 9/11; you are more likely to die in a car accident; I don't know the stats, but you're probably more likely to die doing repairs to your own home... should that be illegal, then? Should you be required to pay a licensed "professional" to clean your gutters?
The whole backlash against the airline industry and for travesties like national ID cards is simply knee-jerk emotional responses not founded by any sort of reality; people are being completely irrational.
I'm in the middle of Atlas Shrugged. I will freely admit Rand was a terrible writer, but I find the substantive content very interesting.
So Hank Reardon has just been schooled by Fransisco D'Anconia on immorality and guilt.
The government declares something immoral, repeats it over and over again with the help of the press and society starts repeating the mantra over and over again, and suddenly you do something that was once considered fine, and you feel guilty because others are now telling you it's immoral; the only way "they" win is if you accept their definition of morality and apply it to yourself.
What's the difference, really? Marijuana is illegal... tobacco and alcohol aren't. Are you really supposed to feel "guilty" or immoral for smoking marijuana when you haven't hurt anyone (except, perhaps, yourself)?
Then it occurred to me all the things the government has been berating lately... profits are evil, insurance companies are evil (OK, I know there are incidents, but are you going to tell me they do more bad than good?), gasoline companies are evil (why? because we're so dependent on them?), and to most slashdotters our internet providers are evil, Microsoft is evil.
It's just interesting to think about... the book was just amazingly prescient.... demonize something that is essentially just a natural occurrence, and suddenly doing something that's always been OK makes you feel guilty?
Without this card I: somehow am not anonymous to my employer, somehow manage to pay taxes, and, for the record, I've always had the "right" to healthcare, but just like the right to bear arms, I've never had the right to force someone to give it to me.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
I fail to see the difference... you are accomplishing the same thing in a different way: you are making everyone else pay for preexisting conditions.
I'm not saying I don't have sympathy for people; I'm not saying they shouldn't be helped; people who are supporting this system need to stop the disingenuous rhetoric that those opposed to "obamacare" want people to die in the streets with no help. It's disgusting.
Ultimately, while I think the government can do things to make insurance more affordable for everyone, I also believe:
1. the government should NOT be in the business of insuring people.
2. it is unconstitutional to REQUIRE everyone buy health insurance.
3. government regulations are part of the reason costs are so high to begin with.
4. there is no health care "crisis" in the U.S.; our health care is second to NONE. You can cherry pick statistics all you want, but more people come TO the U.S. for life saving surgery than anywhere else for a reason, and statistics don't show the whole picture (including diversity of population, lifestyle choices, and the fact that many of the statistics are not consistently generated country to country).
5. the middle class will bear the burden of this legislation, not the "evil, greedy" rich people.
6. people need to stop pretending their Euro-socialist healthcare is "free." It's disingenuous AT BEST.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You people don't get it.
So you begrudge the fractions of a penny that this guy's pre-existing condition will cost you, because you happened to be lucky enough to get insurance before you got sick?
Fractions of a penny? My favorite charity happens to be Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. I donate a hell of a lot more than fractions of a penny, not that you should believe anyone posting on the internet; but the point is that it's charity: taxes and health insurance aren't charity. I don't buy health insurance for my family out of the goodness of my heart to help other people.
And it's not fractions of a penny for one guy... it's tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who waited too long to buy insurance and want everyone else to pony up for it. And don't fool yourself with the phony "it's only..."
Income taxes went from 1% on the the highest income of the wealthiest people of the country to everybody paying taxes in brackets approaching 40%, and it was always "it's just a percent more... what's one percent more? Surely you can afford that?"
Sales taxes... from 1% to 9 and 10% in some places; where does it stop? It's always just "one more penny! Just one more penny for every dollar you spend!"
Do I think people with preexisting conditions deserve some help? Of course I do - stop pretending the alternative to government take over of 1/6th the economy is people dying in the streets.
You're implying that car insurance is analogous to health insurance.
Actually I'm saying ripping off health insurance companies can be done in the same fashion as ripping off auto insurers, only now people will have government telling them it's OK.
My prior statement? That was the first statement I made this entire thread.
If you force insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions, then they raise the rates for EVERYBODY.
In other words, you think a preexisting condition should grant a lien on someone else's property?
Would you consider it theft against the policy holders of an automobile insurer if someone had an accident, covered it up so that they could buy insurance, then issued a claim... and then rates go higher for everybody? You people don't get it... the insurance companies don't cover costs out of their own pockets, they pay for it out of everyone else's.
Slashdot Mirror
Laughing...
That's the thing, though... you don't keep buying Porsches in order to have something the "peasants" don't... AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE PRICE!!!
Oh, woe is me, the cost of having better stuff than the peasants...
Interesting. I've always found the FBI warnings annoying, but not terrible, and haven't found a DVD that I couldn't somehow get through the previews quickly: if the menu button doesn't work, the skip or fast forward buttons usually do. But the issue isn't merely avoidance, it's annoyance... you're paying for a DVD and your reward is the annoyance, whereas people who've ripped the content or obtained it illegally are often free from such annoyances.
I don't know what the problem is... the video game industry learned a long time ago that code wheels and word or number lookups just encouraged people to crack the games... it seems sad everyone has to go through the same painful lesson of what happens when you annoy paying customers while the "pirates" get unfettered content for free.
So don't %#!$ing buy it.
If you didn't bend over and keep asking for it, the prices would come down.
Fanboys (Apple or otherwise) get ripped because they let themselves get ripped. Case closed.
I just didn't think they were all that funny.
Well... except the Radio Shack cell phone ad.
It's already written into the bill... they need a REALLY good reason to suspect you; they are not allowed to "suspect" you do to skin color, race, or country of origin...
Now proving what their suspicion was in court may be difficult, but you'd better believe it'll be the first question out of the court appointed lawyer's mouth.
Moreover... they can't just ask you for no reason, there has to be reasonable suspicion, and on top of that, it's already written into the bill that they must obey existing law: skin color, race, or country of origin is NOT acceptable for reason of suspicion.
The reaction to this bill is WAY overblown; it's pretty ridiculous... as pointed out, it's not even a new law regarding immigration, it's a new law to simply encourage enforcement.
I know some of you want us to just take everybody that strolls in, but right now there's a legal process to do it.
On top of all that, they won't even necessarily arrest you... if you give them your information they can look you up.
Yup... vote buying. Wasn't it already illegal to fraudulently misrepresent yourself?
Again, a specific law where a generic one sufficed... all so they can say "see what we did?!?!"
I would rather pay directly to my state then have the federal government as a middle man using my money to reward states for "keeping in line."
Besides, money for roads shouldn't come from taxing income, it should come from taxing transportation... like gasoline taxes.
Except you have to pay more and be saddled with those glasses for no benefit at all, probably just so can go see it with your friends or family.
It is a gimmick, but it's a gimmick whose time has come. They tried it in the 50's with red/cyan anaglyph; they tried it in the late 70's and early 80's with polarization (Jaws 3 in 3D, Friday the 13th part 3). It makes sense... but not in the gimmicky way in which people are still doing it - throwing things out of the screen at you; gratuitous stuff that they wouldn't have put in a 2D movie just for effect... these are things they do to try to compensate for the crappy movies they've been releasing.
But it's like special effects... new techniques get over used as compensation for lack of a good story; they make movies just to do the special effects instead of using the special effects to make a good movie... but we're getting past that, now... special effects are so integrated in with some really great movies, you can't even tell sometimes, and it becomes more rare as time goes on for special effects to be the movie instead of adding to it.
The same will happen with 3D... I really like 3D, and someday it'll be beautiful picture in 3D and you won't even notice, it'll just be one more thing to help bring you into the environment.
But that day hasn't come yet, and right now, after seeing a number of movies in 3D (and, in fact, doing a lot of research into stereoscopic 3D graphics while in university), I'm just not going to pay the extra. They'll get better, and every once in a while I'll give it a whirl, but 3D is not a selling point to me yet.
Like healthcare. Like the Patriot act. Like social security. Like medicare.
Anyone who doesn't understand these were power grabs is fooling themselves.
All they have to do is convince enough people it's "for the greater good."
Yeah, some people do... but by requiring proper labeling, they're not dictating your behavior. They're requiring a certain behavior from the companies, but not telling them how to make their products... just truthfully tell us what's in them.
So, I can see both sides, but I don't consider that so much to be a "nanny-state" complaint.
Agreed... I have no one to blame but myself. It's not society's fault; it's not McDonald's fault (although I don't eat there anyway, but you get the idea).
I'm a work-a-holic right now, have two kids to chauffeur around, and don't take the time to eat right and exercise. When I make a conceivable schedule for a day and squeeze in proper meals and a workout around work and kids, my wife asks "where am I on your list?" It just doesn't all fit. But it's my choice, I just choose to continue taking my kids to the things that I hope will help keep them from getting this way (sports and dance classes).
But I know it's my choice and I know I'm taking the easy way out when I eat junk.
Right... so you want to use the power of government to FORCE restaurants to serve people what you think they should be serving?
Here are your options:
1. restaurant doesn't offer low sodium products, so you don't go there.
2. seek restaurants that offer low-sodium versions of some of their products where it makes sense.
3. use government force on private company to behave the way you want them to, whether or not other people want choices.
Why do statists always like to jump to step 3?
The link was to an article about a assemblyman who wants to BAN salts in NY, and cut salts in manufactured products.
This is not the same as requiring proper and correct food labeling.
When people complain about the nanny-state, they aren't complaining about companies having to tell you, correctly, what's in their products, it's when the state says you can't do something as opposed to making the decision yourself based on correct labeling.
I'm 43, I own a house and two cars, and any decent lender will do manual underwriting.
I have to laugh, because I don't give a flying leap about my credit report. Not all of us are that stupid to get ourselves buried in debt, and those that did have no one to blame but themselves... certainly not the "gummint."
The "right" to healthcare has always been a right, actually. Nobody would ever stop you from seeking healthcare; and I would say it was "right" by the tenth amendment.
But, like all rights enumerated in the constitution, it's a negative one. I have the right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to force someone to give (or even sell) me a gun. I have the right to free speech, but I don't have the right to force a newspaper to print my opinions, or to force a radio station to give me air time. Healthcare is, IMO, the exact same way... it is a right, it always has been, and it's a negative right.
If someone wants it enshrined in the constitution, it would logically read something like "the right to seek healthcare shall not be infringed."
I don't think those things make us safe, and they don't make me feel safe at all.
Life has risks; you drive down the street, you are risking your life. You take a shower, you are risking your life (more accidents in the home happen in the shower/bathtub than anywhere else).
The whole "if it saves just one life" mantra is complete nonsense. Tell you what, if you didn't drive to the movie theater, you wouldn't be putting your life at risk. If only one person has died driving to a movie, such a frivolous thing to die for, then wouldn't it be worth banning driving for non-essential frivolities? Sounds stupid, but you're more likely to be struck by lightening than killed by a terrorist, and that was true before AND after 9/11; you are more likely to die in a car accident; I don't know the stats, but you're probably more likely to die doing repairs to your own home... should that be illegal, then? Should you be required to pay a licensed "professional" to clean your gutters?
The whole backlash against the airline industry and for travesties like national ID cards is simply knee-jerk emotional responses not founded by any sort of reality; people are being completely irrational.
I'm in the middle of Atlas Shrugged. I will freely admit Rand was a terrible writer, but I find the substantive content very interesting.
So Hank Reardon has just been schooled by Fransisco D'Anconia on immorality and guilt.
The government declares something immoral, repeats it over and over again with the help of the press and society starts repeating the mantra over and over again, and suddenly you do something that was once considered fine, and you feel guilty because others are now telling you it's immoral; the only way "they" win is if you accept their definition of morality and apply it to yourself.
What's the difference, really? Marijuana is illegal... tobacco and alcohol aren't. Are you really supposed to feel "guilty" or immoral for smoking marijuana when you haven't hurt anyone (except, perhaps, yourself)?
Then it occurred to me all the things the government has been berating lately... profits are evil, insurance companies are evil (OK, I know there are incidents, but are you going to tell me they do more bad than good?), gasoline companies are evil (why? because we're so dependent on them?), and to most slashdotters our internet providers are evil, Microsoft is evil.
It's just interesting to think about... the book was just amazingly prescient.... demonize something that is essentially just a natural occurrence, and suddenly doing something that's always been OK makes you feel guilty?
Without this card I: somehow am not anonymous to my employer, somehow manage to pay taxes, and, for the record, I've always had the "right" to healthcare, but just like the right to bear arms, I've never had the right to force someone to give it to me.
I fail to see the difference... you are accomplishing the same thing in a different way: you are making everyone else pay for preexisting conditions.
I'm not saying I don't have sympathy for people; I'm not saying they shouldn't be helped; people who are supporting this system need to stop the disingenuous rhetoric that those opposed to "obamacare" want people to die in the streets with no help. It's disgusting.
Ultimately, while I think the government can do things to make insurance more affordable for everyone, I also believe:
1. the government should NOT be in the business of insuring people.
2. it is unconstitutional to REQUIRE everyone buy health insurance.
3. government regulations are part of the reason costs are so high to begin with.
4. there is no health care "crisis" in the U.S.; our health care is second to NONE. You can cherry pick statistics all you want, but more people come TO the U.S. for life saving surgery than anywhere else for a reason, and statistics don't show the whole picture (including diversity of population, lifestyle choices, and the fact that many of the statistics are not consistently generated country to country).
5. the middle class will bear the burden of this legislation, not the "evil, greedy" rich people.
6. people need to stop pretending their Euro-socialist healthcare is "free." It's disingenuous AT BEST.
You people don't get it.
Fractions of a penny? My favorite charity happens to be Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. I donate a hell of a lot more than fractions of a penny, not that you should believe anyone posting on the internet; but the point is that it's charity: taxes and health insurance aren't charity. I don't buy health insurance for my family out of the goodness of my heart to help other people.
And it's not fractions of a penny for one guy... it's tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who waited too long to buy insurance and want everyone else to pony up for it. And don't fool yourself with the phony "it's only..."
Income taxes went from 1% on the the highest income of the wealthiest people of the country to everybody paying taxes in brackets approaching 40%, and it was always "it's just a percent more... what's one percent more? Surely you can afford that?"
Sales taxes... from 1% to 9 and 10% in some places; where does it stop? It's always just "one more penny! Just one more penny for every dollar you spend!"
Do I think people with preexisting conditions deserve some help? Of course I do - stop pretending the alternative to government take over of 1/6th the economy is people dying in the streets.
Actually I'm saying ripping off health insurance companies can be done in the same fashion as ripping off auto insurers, only now people will have government telling them it's OK.
My prior statement? That was the first statement I made this entire thread.
If you force insurance companies to accept people with preexisting conditions, then they raise the rates for EVERYBODY.
In other words, you think a preexisting condition should grant a lien on someone else's property?
Would you consider it theft against the policy holders of an automobile insurer if someone had an accident, covered it up so that they could buy insurance, then issued a claim... and then rates go higher for everybody? You people don't get it... the insurance companies don't cover costs out of their own pockets, they pay for it out of everyone else's.
Way to present a false dichotomy!
Good for you, dingo.