The FAA doesn't really care. You can use your cell phone on a commercial flight, as long as the airline certifies that it is safe and allows you to use it. No airline is going to do this of course. In fact, use your cell phone all you want in a private aircraft. You might get into trouble with the FCC, but not the FAA.
He's running an [i]apparantly[/i] legitimate business, that just sprang up after the lawsuit, even though he has owned the domain for the last 8 years. He explains this by saying that it has taken him two (of the last 8) years do set up distributor agreements. He makes no mention of the 6 years before that. There's a pretty strong argument to be made that he's a cybersquatter.
If you were playing in bars that normally had live music (or a juke box) it's entirely possible that you were already covered under their licensing agreement.
Mechanical royalties for authors are currently at $.09 per song. In 1963, it was $.02 per song. So $.12 of each copy of Please Please Me was paid to outside authors. Whoopdi do. Plus, since the royalties are only paid on copies sold, there's really no burden at all. In any case it's paid by the label.
You've obviously never had a 2 lb, 10 oz baby who was born after only 27 weeks.
Not very many people have.
My daughter was born in 1989. The estimated cost for her to be in the neonatal intensive care ward for 3 months was about $450,000. And with the advances in care since then, the cost has gone UP, not DOWN. So I think that $500,000 is a convservative estimate, and certainly an appropriate round-number estimate.
Like I said, you're not typical. And arguing by anecdote is dumb. But it doesn't change the facts. Whether your baby was born in the US or Canada, she would have been taken care of, regardless of your ability to pay. The dollar figure I gave you is not what is budgeted for illegal immigrant care, it's what is actually spent. And what is spent is whatever is needed, so your point is moot.
And I know of a FEW cases of people who can't go to the doctor because they have no insurance, but because of some weird calculations used to determine medicare/medicaid eligibility, they don't qualify for those programmes.
Insurance isn't a requirement to visit a doctor. I don't know any doctors who won't accept cash patients, and most of them give their cash patients favorable rates. I know several doctors who don't accept insurance at all. If you want to see these doctors you pay them, and then you work out with your insurance company whether you will get reimbursed. These doctors are some of the best and are always busy, so they can make whatever rules they want. In Canada, these doctors would be criminals, and they would be forced to treat whoever the gov't told them to treat. That's too much like slavery for my taste.
No one will be turned away from any ER in the US because they can't pay. There are also plenty of public hospitals who treat people who can't afford to pay outside of the ER. Now, your friends might have employers who don't provide insurance, but it's your friends' choice where they want to work. They might also make too much money to qualify for medicaid. They'll still get treatment when they need it. They'll be expected to pay for it, but what's wrong with that? So, they should get their own insurance, or self insure (pay out of pocket). "Gap" or temporary insurance is available to just about anyone, and it's cheap. $40 - $100 month. That's movie money. I have a particular medical history that put premium health insurance out of my reach when I wasn't working. However, I had no problem getting inexpensive gap insurance. Yeah, your friends might have to sacrifice something discretionary, but next time they bitch, remind them how much more you pay in taxes, and how you have NO CHOICE.
I stand by my statement. To claim that people in the US is denied necessary treatment because of inability to pay is ignorant.
It doesn't cost $500,000 to take care of your average premie. Your experience is not evidence. This county has a population of 2 million. That's $10 of every resident's yearly property taxes that goes to free healthcare for illegal immigrants, and that doesn't even begin to count services provided to legal residents of this and neighboring counties. Since you brought up childbirth, 60% of the babies born in our largest county hospital are born to illegal immigrants. There is no hope that htese people will ever pay a penny, yet not one of them is ever turned away.
If you're going to claim that people in the US are being denied healthcare because they don't have insurance, then you're eith a liar or completely ignorant.
We already have socialized medicine in this country. On the local level as I mentioned, and on the federal level in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. The difference between the US and Canada is that in the US, we ALSO have a private healthcare system. I CAN get private insurance, and I CAN see whatever doctor I want on whatever terms the two of us agree to. It isn't an issue of getting or not getting, it's an issue of freedom to choose.
First, no sick person in the United States is denied healthcare because they can't afford to pay for it. In many cases, even illegal immigrants get free care, to the tune of $22 million a year in this county alone.
And second, your statement that, "socialized medicine is a benefit to the market economy. Just ask the authors of the GM study that recommended moving production OUT of the us and into canada because the cost of health care for current and retired us employees is too burdensome." Is equivalent to saying that people living in abject poverty and being to work for pennies a day must be good for the market economy. Just ask all the business that offshore to India.
why stop at medicine...Public shools are for the weak! Public Libraries make pussy out of our kids! Get rid of public health inspectors! And don't get me started on socialized police forces and armies! Those bastards are just sucking at the government's teat.
Perhaps you should do some research on "public goods".
The author of the study seems to disagree with your conclusions. He thinks that factors other than the universal availabilty of healthcare must explain the result:
Dr. Michael Marmot, an author of the report, said the research showed that differences in health could not be ascribed to the "usual suspects," like rates of smoking, obesity or alcohol abuse.
Nor could varying levels of health be attributed to differences between the health care systems of the United States and Britain, he said.
"I'm arguing that it's due to the differences in the circumstances in which people live," he said Tuesday in a telephone interview. "Work, job insecurity, the nature of communities, residential communities, et cetera I think that's the place we should try to look."
So we start with 17k, less 5000, less 2400, less another 5k. So that leaves us with about 4000. And in reality, I bet quite a few of them are not "climate scientists".
It's far less than this, since at a maximum it is 2,660:
"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists..."
Since it's a much more common field, we'd probably be justified in assuming that various physicists make up the bulk of this category, but even if we assume that they are evenly divided, that only leaves 1,329 climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists.
I'll bet that you've never been in a union. If your shop steward "suggests" that you vote a certain way, and "suggests" that you bring in your reciept and show it to him after election day, what are you going to rat him out for?
And since you can only verify which bubble you punched, and there is no way to correlate that bubble to a vote for a particular candidate, how do you verify that your actual vote was counted correctly?
Isn't America the only country that doesn't have a national system for voting?
If you start with a faulty premise, you will come to a faulty conclusion. It's The United States of America. I know they aren't teaching federalism in the public schools anymore, but it's sort of an important concept.
Gore's monkeys weren't whining about chads, they were whining about Buchannan. Gore claimed that he should have gotten most of the Buchannan votes because his voters were dumb enough to punch the wrong hole (but not dumb enough to vote for Buchannan?). If hanging chads had been the real problem, it would have manifested itself evenly across the candidates. Unless you want to argue that Gore voters are more feeble and unable to punch paper than Bush voters?
And since you think that the the fed.gov has no authority to tell states how to run an election, I'd guess that you want the Voting Rights Act and Help America Vote Acts thrown out.
Tell the truth. You weren't even old enough to vote in 2000, were you?
How do you know that the computer didn't record your token correctly, but your actual vote incorrectly?
Re:Don't blame just the policy makers.
on
Internet Only 1% Porn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
As with any government endeavour they hired scientist, computer experts, and a slew of other specialities. Do you think those people are come back with data that doesn't support their continued existance?
Yes, that's EXACTLY what they did. The government was trying to prove that there is a need for COPA. Instead they proved that there isn't.
We don't have to look at 30 years ago, we can look at recent history. Republicans cut taxes and increased government revenue at the same time. "WTF?", say the Democrats. People who understand how the economy works aren't surprised. The Democrats have already promised to repeal the tax cuts and increase the minimum wage. I'm sure they will be shocked when that leads to a slowing of the economy, lower tax revenues, more jobs moving off shore, and greater numbers of Americans living off public assistance.
1. You don't really know how your friends feel about politics. 2. You don't know many Republicans.
Depending on your definition of "social conservative" most Americans are social conservatives. However, there are plenty of Republicans who aren't. Come down to Texas, and I'll introduce you to some gay Republicans, who aren't social conservatives, but realize just how much the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
comment id 16786329: > Last night we crossed over 16,777,216 comments [snip] >.. but on a table that is 16 million rows long
That's nearer 17 million YTC > Last night we crossed over 16,777,216 comments [snip] >.. but on a table that is 16 million rows long
That's nearer 17 million YTC i'd be willing to bet it's much below 16 million actual comments, since the first few were probably tests, and then deleted. he means the comment with a primary key of 16777216; that doesnt necessarily mean there are that many comments in the table.
Since only the odd numbers are used to table is really closer to 8 million lines long.
Verizon the phone company is a common carrier. Verizon the ISP isn't. ISPs have fought common carrier status since the beginning (cf, net neutrality). The protections that you refer to exist under the DMCA, but kicking someone off hte network for violating the TOS sin't the same as censoring content.
Slashdot Mirror
The FAA doesn't really care. You can use your cell phone on a commercial flight, as long as the airline certifies that it is safe and allows you to use it. No airline is going to do this of course. In fact, use your cell phone all you want in a private aircraft. You might get into trouble with the FCC, but not the FAA.
They can, they just don't.
He's running an [i]apparantly[/i] legitimate business, that just sprang up after the lawsuit, even though he has owned the domain for the last 8 years. He explains this by saying that it has taken him two (of the last 8) years do set up distributor agreements. He makes no mention of the 6 years before that. There's a pretty strong argument to be made that he's a cybersquatter.
If you were playing in bars that normally had live music (or a juke box) it's entirely possible that you were already covered under their licensing agreement.
Mechanical royalties for authors are currently at $.09 per song. In 1963, it was $.02 per song. So $.12 of each copy of Please Please Me was paid to outside authors. Whoopdi do. Plus, since the royalties are only paid on copies sold, there's really no burden at all. In any case it's paid by the label.
How does such ignorance get modded +5 insightful?
You've obviously never had a 2 lb, 10 oz baby who was born after only 27 weeks.
Not very many people have.
My daughter was born in 1989. The estimated cost for her to be in the neonatal intensive care ward for 3 months was about $450,000. And with the advances in care since then, the cost has gone UP, not DOWN. So I think that $500,000 is a convservative estimate, and certainly an appropriate round-number estimate.
Like I said, you're not typical. And arguing by anecdote is dumb. But it doesn't change the facts. Whether your baby was born in the US or Canada, she would have been taken care of, regardless of your ability to pay. The dollar figure I gave you is not what is budgeted for illegal immigrant care, it's what is actually spent. And what is spent is whatever is needed, so your point is moot.
And I know of a FEW cases of people who can't go to the doctor because they have no insurance, but because of some weird calculations used to determine medicare/medicaid eligibility, they don't qualify for those programmes.
Insurance isn't a requirement to visit a doctor. I don't know any doctors who won't accept cash patients, and most of them give their cash patients favorable rates. I know several doctors who don't accept insurance at all. If you want to see these doctors you pay them, and then you work out with your insurance company whether you will get reimbursed. These doctors are some of the best and are always busy, so they can make whatever rules they want. In Canada, these doctors would be criminals, and they would be forced to treat whoever the gov't told them to treat. That's too much like slavery for my taste.
No one will be turned away from any ER in the US because they can't pay. There are also plenty of public hospitals who treat people who can't afford to pay outside of the ER. Now, your friends might have employers who don't provide insurance, but it's your friends' choice where they want to work. They might also make too much money to qualify for medicaid. They'll still get treatment when they need it. They'll be expected to pay for it, but what's wrong with that? So, they should get their own insurance, or self insure (pay out of pocket). "Gap" or temporary insurance is available to just about anyone, and it's cheap. $40 - $100 month. That's movie money. I have a particular medical history that put premium health insurance out of my reach when I wasn't working. However, I had no problem getting inexpensive gap insurance. Yeah, your friends might have to sacrifice something discretionary, but next time they bitch, remind them how much more you pay in taxes, and how you have NO CHOICE.
I stand by my statement. To claim that people in the US is denied necessary treatment because of inability to pay is ignorant.
It doesn't cost $500,000 to take care of your average premie. Your experience is not evidence. This county has a population of 2 million. That's $10 of every resident's yearly property taxes that goes to free healthcare for illegal immigrants, and that doesn't even begin to count services provided to legal residents of this and neighboring counties. Since you brought up childbirth, 60% of the babies born in our largest county hospital are born to illegal immigrants. There is no hope that htese people will ever pay a penny, yet not one of them is ever turned away.
If you're going to claim that people in the US are being denied healthcare because they don't have insurance, then you're eith a liar or completely ignorant.
We already have socialized medicine in this country. On the local level as I mentioned, and on the federal level in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. The difference between the US and Canada is that in the US, we ALSO have a private healthcare system. I CAN get private insurance, and I CAN see whatever doctor I want on whatever terms the two of us agree to. It isn't an issue of getting or not getting, it's an issue of freedom to choose.
Yeah, you did.
First, no sick person in the United States is denied healthcare because they can't afford to pay for it. In many cases, even illegal immigrants get free care, to the tune of $22 million a year in this county alone.
And second, your statement that, "socialized medicine is a benefit to the market economy. Just ask the authors of the GM study that recommended moving production OUT of the us and into canada because the cost of health care for current and retired us employees is too burdensome." Is equivalent to saying that people living in abject poverty and being to work for pennies a day must be good for the market economy. Just ask all the business that offshore to India.
why stop at medicine...Public shools are for the weak! Public Libraries make pussy out of our kids! Get rid of public health inspectors! And don't get me started on socialized police forces and armies! Those bastards are just sucking at the government's teat.
Perhaps you should do some research on "public goods".
So we start with 17k, less 5000, less 2400, less another 5k. So that leaves us with about 4000. And in reality, I bet quite a few of them are not "climate scientists".
It's far less than this, since at a maximum it is 2,660:
"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists..."
Since it's a much more common field, we'd probably be justified in assuming that various physicists make up the bulk of this category, but even if we assume that they are evenly divided, that only leaves 1,329 climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists.
Yes, of course they are. I did not deny that they weren't.
You most certainly did deny that they aren't. Right there in the first quoted sentence.
I'll bet that you've never been in a union. If your shop steward "suggests" that you vote a certain way, and "suggests" that you bring in your reciept and show it to him after election day, what are you going to rat him out for?
And since you can only verify which bubble you punched, and there is no way to correlate that bubble to a vote for a particular candidate, how do you verify that your actual vote was counted correctly?
Isn't America the only country that doesn't have a national system for voting?
If you start with a faulty premise, you will come to a faulty conclusion. It's The United States of America. I know they aren't teaching federalism in the public schools anymore, but it's sort of an important concept.
Gore's monkeys weren't whining about chads, they were whining about Buchannan. Gore claimed that he should have gotten most of the Buchannan votes because his voters were dumb enough to punch the wrong hole (but not dumb enough to vote for Buchannan?). If hanging chads had been the real problem, it would have manifested itself evenly across the candidates. Unless you want to argue that Gore voters are more feeble and unable to punch paper than Bush voters?
And since you think that the the fed.gov has no authority to tell states how to run an election, I'd guess that you want the Voting Rights Act and Help America Vote Acts thrown out.
Tell the truth. You weren't even old enough to vote in 2000, were you?
What's the tag for "olde news"?
They doesn't, does they.
Dude, it is not the unarmed 98-year old WW1 veteran at the polling place that prevents gun-wielding maniacs from forcing people to vote a certain way.
Of course it is. Because the 98 yo vet has to put his signature on your ballot, and he's not going to do that if there's hanky-panky going on.
How do you know that the computer didn't record your token correctly, but your actual vote incorrectly?
As with any government endeavour they hired scientist, computer experts, and a slew of other specialities. Do you think those people are come back with data that doesn't support their continued existance?
Yes, that's EXACTLY what they did. The government was trying to prove that there is a need for COPA. Instead they proved that there isn't.
Two words, "Jimmy Carter"
We don't have to look at 30 years ago, we can look at recent history. Republicans cut taxes and increased government revenue at the same time. "WTF?", say the Democrats. People who understand how the economy works aren't surprised. The Democrats have already promised to repeal the tax cuts and increase the minimum wage. I'm sure they will be shocked when that leads to a slowing of the economy, lower tax revenues, more jobs moving off shore, and greater numbers of Americans living off public assistance.
Two possibilities:
1. You don't really know how your friends feel about politics.
2. You don't know many Republicans.
Depending on your definition of "social conservative" most Americans are social conservatives. However, there are plenty of Republicans who aren't. Come down to Texas, and I'll introduce you to some gay Republicans, who aren't social conservatives, but realize just how much the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
Since only the odd numbers are used to table is really closer to 8 million lines long.
Verizon the phone company is a common carrier. Verizon the ISP isn't. ISPs have fought common carrier status since the beginning (cf, net neutrality). The protections that you refer to exist under the DMCA, but kicking someone off hte network for violating the TOS sin't the same as censoring content.
ISPs are not common carriers. There's no issue here. Move along.