If could open a non-profit healthcare company, this is how it would be. It would be based upon the thesis that people who strive to be healthy would tend to wind up being so, and that active health maintenance reduces the overall cost of heatlhcare.
There would be no group plan, just a flat rate for all.
Twice yearly checkups are not merely free, they are mandatory. Doctors would be able to prescribe smoking cessation, draft exercise regimes and general health maintenance counsiling.
Covering all right off the bat in this country would not be possible. This company would only be open to minors initially and those without pre-existing conditions. That policy would continue until the company has enough capitol to insure everyone else.
Go ahead and wallow in your filth, but don't force it on me. If the majority declares themselves to be of your opinion, then so be it, but I'll continue to oppose it. The answer is to ditch your TV or change it to the fluffy channel and remove the channel knob. With the number of children exploding in bloody chunks after hearing 'fuck' from the airwaves, that is the only sane option.
Regardless of whether individual applications are more productive, it's undeniable that some with a modern PC (or a modern Mac for that matter) is more productive than the same person with a Mac SE in 1987. Now a days, when I work with word. Type Type Type...damn, why did it Capitalize that word I did not want in caps? Lowercase the letter. *boink* it capitlalized it. Lower case it. *boink*. Lowercase it again. Ok, it stuck that time. Argh, it just formatted that block of text on its own.... *grumble*... unformat.
More productive? No, its wasting clock cycles to tick me off and slow me down even further.
Not saying that the emails aren't real, just saying that for the sake of credibility, more evidence is needed. Remember the embarrassment of the forged Bush National Guard documents? (tinfoil hat time, I wouldn't be surprised if they were planted to embarrass someone fixated on the AWOL Bush).
If you look at my political postings you will see I've never been remotely a supporter of W.
"Well, it looks like chucking carbon and poisons into the air *might* not be the cause of future catastrophy. It would be too economically unfeasable to not pollute."
with
"It takes too long to take off pants, lets just crap right in them because it probably won't kill us."
I want a clean planet and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm willing to have jobs shifted to environmental cleanup from other sectors. I wouldn't mind if, for the cost of a few hollywood blockbusters a year, we spend that cash on getting more efficient lightbulbs.
People spend more money on cigarettes than on environmental cleanup. If the economy can support the smoking habit (which results in millions of man-hours lost to cigarette breaks), it can support environmental cleanup.
The debate on global warming has distracted people from arguing "It makes sence to keep things relatively healthy" to a chicken little debate.
Dear CmdTaco,
Thanks for the money. I will now jump up and down like a monkey for your pleasure.
Sincerly,
StrongBad
------------------------ Seriously, you have to take the actual boxes to a trusted neutral party and have them analyzed. Having emails "show up" somewhere is just one step of evidence gathering.
Well, they may be "largely the same", but that's not the same as "identical". In order to refer to the same entity, given their infallibility, the Bible and the Koran would have to be completely consistent, and they are not.
The GP post asserted that they were the same, not that they were identical. One little interesting factlet is that Jesus is considered a very important prophet in Islam. Insulting Jesus can get you into big trouble in the Muslim world.
The ACLU believes that the breadth of the prohibition on tobacco advertisements far exceeds constitutional boundaries, and, if enacted, will most likely fail to withstand constitutional challenge. Moreover, we believe the enactment of the proposed tobacco advertising restrictions would drastically curtail commercial speech and could have a chilling effect on the right of the public and businesses to engage in free speech about controversial subjects.
(And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
Is that a troll or do you actually have a reference to show that the ACLU was actively supporting such bans? Would you be against a ban of mercury in food as a seasoning?
Two dominant players will divide the market in two and concentrate on killing off all the smaller competition while pretending to compete with each other.
"I am ashamed to show my American passport" I'm ashamed you have one.
Ra Ra Ra Root Root Root Gooooo Team!
Seriously, this kind of mentality is the same as the 'root for my sports team or soft drink mentality' with no more thought. The Germans can tell you : decades or centuries of honorable behavior does not prevent one's honor from being swept away after despicable behavior.
That risks the scenario of the north opening up the borders and flooding its neighbors with refugees. On top of that, the north may feel they have no other options but invading the south.
The reason why people prefer centralized authorities is because they are more effective.
I am sad to say I agree with your points. I am sad because the government(s) we (all people) are going to wind up with is going to be somewhere between a western democracy and Chinese 'Communism', weighted towards the authoritarian 'the state will take care of you' style government. It will have the dressings of a democracy, but will be far less of one.
The only problem with that argument is it really breaks down when the country balloons to 300 million people.
They say the US is a working experiment in democracy. We will see if it is scalable. I have a little hope, but suspect you will prove correct. My hope comes from my belief that democracy is the 'right' way to live.
I think you are right in that promiscuity is a legit concern. Teenage pregnancies and STDs are not good things. That being said, I think children are going to get a lot more sexual ideas from watching TV (anytime) and from popular culture.
I dispute that the nastiness you see on the web is going to inspire most children, even those without a supportive upbringing. Most kids with even marginal empathy are also not in that much danger if they read hate site, but hate sites are written for an audience that is feeling misunderstood and outcast (a phase teens do go through).
I am not advocating banning any sort of website. I simply believe the XXX site would make it easier for parents to filter out a lot of questionable content. Would sites register on.xxx and.com? Certainly. Will most of them? Probably not.
I think the reaction from kids (or most people) to that would be a big 'yuck'. What sort of damage do you think will happen to them? If they see a picture of someone eating poop, do you really think your kids are going to want to try that? I doubt it.
If you don't make them move into the.xxx domain...
Don't you think giving them an easy way to 'comply' with child protection laws is an incentive? They want to make money and not be bothered.
The one thing that does bother me about the XXX domain is the silliness of worring about porn at all. I'd be more worried if children were exposed to a neo-Nazi propoganda site than to some boobies.
It was a stupid idea since they were not requiring XXX sites to use it.
This comment is yet more evidence that people have the mindset that an overarching centralized authority should be controlling everything. They should make a law...That should be illegal.
I thought the idea behind the XXX domain was this : a website registers under that domain. 'Parental Filters' (there is a bad band name in the wings) block all XXX domains. The children are protected and the porn site owners have now made a reasonable attempt to exclude minors from viewing their site. That sounds like an inexpensive way to buy a reasonable amount of protection without resorting to laws or regulations.
And the FAA has banned computerized flight control
What next? Seriously, why is voting any different from these other very important uses of computers? Doesn't it make more sense to fix the problem rather than ban the machines?
Think about it. Your examples revolve around money or human life. The manufacturers of those machines __must__ get them right, or there is immediate finantial fallout.
Those examples do not produce hidden results; if your atm gobbles up your deposit without crediting it, you find out. If a plane crashes, you hear about it.
The average voter has no way of knowing if a voting machine is doing it's job. What is the penalty if the manufacturer 'unwittingly' messes up? There is not as much incentive for accuracy in this case.
That being said, he's just earned his "oooo, I'm for security" political credit for the day, and preventing a republican from scooping that.
There is something darwinian about US politics. Any politician that speaks their mind too often gets weeded out. The survivors cameoflage themselves in the Coke vs Pepsi plank (or favorite sports team plank). Right now, if you are not 'for security', you are not electable.
Slashdot Mirror
If could open a non-profit healthcare company, this is how it would be. It would be based upon the thesis that people who strive to be healthy would tend to wind up being so, and that active health maintenance reduces the overall cost of heatlhcare.
There would be no group plan, just a flat rate for all.
Twice yearly checkups are not merely free, they are mandatory.
Doctors would be able to prescribe smoking cessation, draft exercise regimes and general health maintenance counsiling.
Covering all right off the bat in this country would not be possible. This company would only be open to minors initially and those without pre-existing conditions. That policy would continue until the company has enough capitol to insure everyone else.
OK minions, force this person to watch filthy TV!
More productive? No, its wasting clock cycles to tick me off and slow me down even further.
Heh,
Not saying that the emails aren't real, just saying that for the sake of credibility, more evidence is needed. Remember the embarrassment of the forged Bush National Guard documents? (tinfoil hat time, I wouldn't be surprised if they were planted to embarrass someone fixated on the AWOL Bush).
If you look at my political postings you will see I've never been remotely a supporter of W.
Compare :
"Well, it looks like chucking carbon and poisons into the air *might* not be the cause of future catastrophy. It would be too economically unfeasable to not pollute."
with
"It takes too long to take off pants, lets just crap right in them because it probably won't kill us."
I want a clean planet and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm willing to have jobs shifted to environmental cleanup from other sectors. I wouldn't mind if, for the cost of a few hollywood blockbusters a year, we spend that cash on getting more efficient lightbulbs.
People spend more money on cigarettes than on environmental cleanup. If the economy can support the smoking habit (which results in millions of man-hours lost to cigarette breaks), it can support environmental cleanup.
The debate on global warming has distracted people from arguing "It makes sence to keep things relatively healthy" to a chicken little debate.
Dear CmdTaco,
Thanks for the money. I will now jump up and down like a monkey for your pleasure.
Sincerly,
StrongBad
------------------------
Seriously, you have to take the actual boxes to a trusted neutral party and have them analyzed. Having emails "show up" somewhere is just one step of evidence gathering.
He's a virgin.
But.. 'same' is not identical to 'identical'. Or is it?
The GP post asserted that they were the same, not that they were identical. One little interesting factlet is that Jesus is considered a very important prophet in Islam. Insulting Jesus can get you into big trouble in the Muslim world.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/11064le
From the article:
Is that a troll or do you actually have a reference to show that the ACLU was actively supporting such bans?
Would you be against a ban of mercury in food as a seasoning?
The minister for Thai Ice Tea of course.
Burger King vs McDonalds
and now
iPod vs Zuni
Two dominant players will divide the market in two and concentrate on killing off all the smaller competition while pretending to compete with each other.
Ra Ra Ra
Root Root Root
Gooooo Team!
Seriously, this kind of mentality is the same as the 'root for my sports team or soft drink mentality' with no more thought. The Germans can tell you : decades or centuries of honorable behavior does not prevent one's honor from being swept away after despicable behavior.
would lead to the inner city schools actually having up to date books (or books at all).
The landowners are more likely to vote for those judges, and if you are moving out of the area, you are not going to be voting for them.
That risks the scenario of the north opening up the borders and flooding its neighbors with refugees. On top of that, the north may feel they have no other options but invading the south.
I am sad to say I agree with your points. I am sad because the government(s) we (all people) are going to wind up with is going to be somewhere between a western democracy and Chinese 'Communism', weighted towards the authoritarian 'the state will take care of you' style government. It will have the dressings of a democracy, but will be far less of one.
They say the US is a working experiment in democracy. We will see if it is scalable. I have a little hope, but suspect you will prove correct. My hope comes from my belief that democracy is the 'right' way to live.
I think you are right in that promiscuity is a legit concern. Teenage pregnancies and STDs are not good things. That being said, I think children are going to get a lot more sexual ideas from watching TV (anytime) and from popular culture.
.xxx and .com? Certainly. Will most of them? Probably not.
I dispute that the nastiness you see on the web is going to inspire most children, even those without a supportive upbringing. Most kids with even marginal empathy are also not in that much danger if they read hate site, but hate sites are written for an audience that is feeling misunderstood and outcast (a phase teens do go through).
I am not advocating banning any sort of website. I simply believe the XXX site would make it easier for parents to filter out a lot of questionable content. Would sites register on
To have a kid who is gay or into kinky sex
or
To have a kid who is a skinhead and beats up gay kids
Your aversion to sexual images and lack of concern to hate speech makes me suspect you would be more embarrased to have a gay child than a murderer.
I think the reaction from kids (or most people) to that would be a big 'yuck'. What sort of damage do you think will happen to them? If they see a picture of someone eating poop, do you really think your kids are going to want to try that? I doubt it.
Don't you think giving them an easy way to 'comply' with child protection laws is an incentive? They want to make money and not be bothered.
The one thing that does bother me about the XXX domain is the silliness of worring about porn at all. I'd be more worried if children were exposed to a neo-Nazi propoganda site than to some boobies.
This comment is yet more evidence that people have the mindset that an overarching centralized authority should be controlling everything. They should make a law...That should be illegal.
I thought the idea behind the XXX domain was this : a website registers under that domain. 'Parental Filters' (there is a bad band name in the wings) block all XXX domains. The children are protected and the porn site owners have now made a reasonable attempt to exclude minors from viewing their site. That sounds like an inexpensive way to buy a reasonable amount of protection without resorting to laws or regulations.
They may be just as vulnerable, but you can check your balance and know if there is something suspicious going on.
Think about it. Your examples revolve around money or human life. The manufacturers of those machines __must__ get them right, or there is immediate finantial fallout.
Those examples do not produce hidden results; if your atm gobbles up your deposit without crediting it, you find out. If a plane crashes, you hear about it.
The average voter has no way of knowing if a voting machine is doing it's job. What is the penalty if the manufacturer 'unwittingly' messes up? There is not as much incentive for accuracy in this case.
That being said, he's just earned his "oooo, I'm for security" political credit for the day, and preventing a republican from scooping that.
There is something darwinian about US politics. Any politician that speaks their mind too often gets weeded out. The survivors cameoflage themselves in the Coke vs Pepsi plank (or favorite sports team plank). Right now, if you are not 'for security', you are not electable.