It's fairly simple. Conservatives are fairly "sticky" when it comes to old methods and ideologies. So it goes to show that they'd enjoy watching someone that bemoaned change.
So... let me understand this. Conservatives buy into the BS that Obama isn't a citizen because they... don't like change?
Does this make sense to anyone? 'cuz it doesn't to me.
The big one is litigation against doctor's and hospitals and the insurance they have to pay to cover that. This is rarely mentioned as a contributor to health care costs
Are you fucking kidding me? Every time the topic of health care comes up, right wingers go on and on and on about tort reform. Problem is, every study that's looked into it has concluded that, while tort reform would reduce health care costs somewhat, it's *not* a magic bullet.
The other thing that is rarely mentioned is the fact that it is the insurance system itself that allows health care costs to spiral upward. It is the pooling of money, the healthy paying for the sick, that allow doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, etc.
Once again, republican pablum. "People are just shielded from the price!", they cry. And yet other forms of insurance don't seem to suffer from these sorts of cost inflation.
Sorry, bub, your thoughts aren't just unoriginal, they're GOP talking points. What'd you do, find a pamphlet at the dentist's office?
So basically "society" will not tolerate it, but they also don't want to pay for it.
Uhh... exactly. People are stupid. Did you really need someone to point that out? Everyone wants more "stuff" (roads, education, Medicare, etc), while paying less. Hell, California is a fucking posterchild for this phenomenon.
Honestly, how old are you that this is a surprise? 12?
A man with an estimated IQ over 160 and far more knowlegeable than any of us
Hey, here's a thought: stop worshipping men like Jefferson. He wasn't god, Jesus, Mohammad, or the Buddah. He was a man. Learned and experienced? Certainly. Wise and thoughtful. Obviously. But a man. Nothing he or his contemporaries said or wrote was abject, undeniable truth. They're simply ideas.
The blind, thoughtless worship of the "founding fathers" is utterly absurd, and something to be deplored, not celebrated.
Why would any sane person possibly give McDonald's all their personal information in the first place?
One word: contests.
A lot of companies, McDonald's included, run web-based contests (their Monopoly promotion is the first one that comes to mind). And naturally, if you enter a contest, you provide PII...
Don't forget the Kobo. It's cheap, shows up as a plain old USB mass storage drive on any modern OS, and reads DRM-free standard epub files.
It'll also read DRM'd adobe digital editions stuff, but that DRM is trivial to crack. I buy the books, strip the DRM, then load them by USB. The author gets paid for their hard work, and I get a backup-able file that can't be yanked back remotely like Kindle books can. Win-win all around.
So it's exactly the same as the Kindle, then. Well, to each his/her own. *shrug*
So perhaps you can explain the part about the court issuing an order "granting no further cases". I, quite frankly, don't understand the meaning behind that statement, given the context.
Yup. Latest news is that they're planning to target the enterprise space. Or: they couldn't get the price down to iPad levels, so they're gonna try to hit a different niche.
"Doing" statistics? No. *Presenting* statistics, yes. The term "statistics" is a noun describing both the mathematical practice, and the data said practice produces. ie, "X% of people like Y" is a statistic. Producing that data requires applying statistics.
No they have formed a picket line. Have you ever even seen one? Sitting there with signs doesn't do a whole lot of good all the time (though there are plenty where that's all that it amounts to), if there are high tensions, high stakes, and there are actual scabs crossing the line, then fuck yeah there is going to be people being accosted, mostly verbal, and no one is going to move freely in any sense of the word.
And guess what? That's exactly what a DDoS *isn't*. So the comparison sucks. Which was my *entire fucking point*.
Christ, don't people read around here? I mean, really.
A protest is useless if it doesn't actually cause a stir. Even Gandhi was arrested.
LOLFR. Yeah, a bunch of random script kiddies bombarding a website from the comfort of their mothers' basements is exactly the same as Gandhi.
I too have legitimate doubts of your authenticity do to your blinding amounts of fascism
Do you even know what fascism is? Or do you just throw the term around 'cuz it sounds cool?
Seen a few people say they use Adblock and all, which is fine, but if you recognize that an ad-server can be compromised, then why not any other web server you visit?
They can, of course.
But a compromised website is just one site. A compromised ad network means thousands, possibly millions of compromised sites.
It's all about risk management. And the risk associated with a compromised ad network is far greater than the risk associated with a single compromised site.
In hindsight AdBlock solves these kind of things. However I am sure that most people who use AdBlock just do not want to see ads.
I'm not convinced of that.
I'm willing to bet if advertisers returned to simple text and images, and obviated obnoxious flash and animated ads, you'd see far less blocking. These things are fundamentally a) obnoxious, and b) resource intensive, which is why I end up blocking them, and I suspect the same is true of a lot of people.
Fundamentally, for me, ad blocking is about improving the *performance* of the web. Flash is just godawful slow to load, and means I have to wait that much longer to see the content I'm interested in. Return to more simple, less obnoxious ads, and I have little problem unblocking them (as I've done on sites like Ravelry, which have done exactly this).
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way.
Bullshit.
No picketer ever stopped someone from entering a store. Such an action would be an arrestable offence, as it would involve, at minimum, the physical assault of prospective customers, and probably trespass.
The point of picketing isn't about physically preventing people from patronizing the business in question. It's to raise awareness so that customers might *choose* to do business elsewhere.
But I suppose it does make what amounts to vigilantism seem a little more palatable if you equate it to a legitimate protesting method.
So, what, every other DDoS wasn't an 'attack", it was an "event"?
Bullshit.
You just don't like the idea that something you happen to support *this time* is being referred to with *accurate*, pejorative terminology.
Well, suck it up, bucko. Your little wannabe-robinhood friends are nothing more than digital gangsters (actually, that's not fair... gangsters have worked hard to build a reputation for themselves, and it's hardly fair to equate them with a bunch of punk script kiddies), and what they're doing is *attacking* websites in a fit of whiny vigilantism.
Now, that's not to say they don't have legitimate grievances. But what they're doing has been called a "distributed denial of service attack" long before these little bastards decided to use it against VISA.
Well, after engaging my magnificent brain, I see two options: accept it unthinkingly, and think about it. Thinking about it, I can only come up with one reason for the judge to suppress that information: he wanted a guilty verdict
Ah, excellent, so you were in the court room? You understand the full details of the case? What, precisely, the charge was? etc?
Wait... no? You just have an anecdote you heard from somewhere? Oh.
Huh.
Hint: Without the details of the case, *neither* of us have a basis to make a determination either way.
Furthermore, if there *was* shenanigans going on, you can be damned sure the defense attorney of this doctor would've used it as the basis for an appeal. If that didn't happen, I'm going to assume the defense lawyer felt the judge's actions were justified.
Well, I suppose the defense attorney could be on the take, too, right? It is, after all, turtles all the way down...
In the marijuana case, it would have been the defense attorney, and the only reason for the defense attorney not to explain that the defendant was a doctor who had complied with state law would be instructions from the judge.
So? There are *many* reasons why a judge may decide certain evidence is inadmissable. Without knowing the specifics of the case, I can't say one way or another. And neither can you.
So put your bias down and try to think with that magnificent organ known as the "brain" that, I presume, you've been gifted with. It can work remarkably well if you actually try to engage it once in a while, rather than relying on your gut to think for you.
Slashdot Mirror
It's fairly simple. Conservatives are fairly "sticky" when it comes to old methods and ideologies. So it goes to show that they'd enjoy watching someone that bemoaned change.
So... let me understand this. Conservatives buy into the BS that Obama isn't a citizen because they... don't like change?
Does this make sense to anyone? 'cuz it doesn't to me.
The big one is litigation against doctor's and hospitals and the insurance they have to pay to cover that. This is rarely mentioned as a contributor to health care costs
Are you fucking kidding me? Every time the topic of health care comes up, right wingers go on and on and on about tort reform. Problem is, every study that's looked into it has concluded that, while tort reform would reduce health care costs somewhat, it's *not* a magic bullet.
The other thing that is rarely mentioned is the fact that it is the insurance system itself that allows health care costs to spiral upward. It is the pooling of money, the healthy paying for the sick, that allow doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, etc.
Once again, republican pablum. "People are just shielded from the price!", they cry. And yet other forms of insurance don't seem to suffer from these sorts of cost inflation.
Sorry, bub, your thoughts aren't just unoriginal, they're GOP talking points. What'd you do, find a pamphlet at the dentist's office?
So basically "society" will not tolerate it, but they also don't want to pay for it.
Uhh... exactly. People are stupid. Did you really need someone to point that out? Everyone wants more "stuff" (roads, education, Medicare, etc), while paying less. Hell, California is a fucking posterchild for this phenomenon.
Honestly, how old are you that this is a surprise? 12?
A man with an estimated IQ over 160 and far more knowlegeable than any of us
Hey, here's a thought: stop worshipping men like Jefferson. He wasn't god, Jesus, Mohammad, or the Buddah. He was a man. Learned and experienced? Certainly. Wise and thoughtful. Obviously. But a man. Nothing he or his contemporaries said or wrote was abject, undeniable truth. They're simply ideas.
The blind, thoughtless worship of the "founding fathers" is utterly absurd, and something to be deplored, not celebrated.
No I won't think about the ending sequence as I have not seen that movie nor do I particularly feel any need to see it.
Pity, politics aside, it's a pretty damn good movie.
So, unless you're doing one of those things, it's all good? Sweet! Time to form a lynch mob!
Why would any sane person possibly give McDonald's all their personal information in the first place?
One word: contests.
A lot of companies, McDonald's included, run web-based contests (their Monopoly promotion is the first one that comes to mind). And naturally, if you enter a contest, you provide PII...
Don't forget the Kobo. It's cheap, shows up as a plain old USB mass storage drive on any modern OS, and reads DRM-free standard epub files.
It'll also read DRM'd adobe digital editions stuff, but that DRM is trivial to crack. I buy the books, strip the DRM, then load them by USB. The author gets paid for their hard work, and I get a backup-able file that can't be yanked back remotely like Kindle books can. Win-win all around.
So it's exactly the same as the Kindle, then. Well, to each his/her own. *shrug*
So perhaps you can explain the part about the court issuing an order "granting no further cases". I, quite frankly, don't understand the meaning behind that statement, given the context.
Yup. Latest news is that they're planning to target the enterprise space. Or: they couldn't get the price down to iPad levels, so they're gonna try to hit a different niche.
Checkmate!
"Doing" statistics? No. *Presenting* statistics, yes. The term "statistics" is a noun describing both the mathematical practice, and the data said practice produces. ie, "X% of people like Y" is a statistic. Producing that data requires applying statistics.
Gotta love the English language.
Nah. You just need to be a black or poor pot smoker. Last I checked, an Ivy Leaguer with an ounce of green wasn't getting arrested on a regular basis.
No, this is not a tax, because you can't tax someone for not purchasing something.
Yes, it is a tax.
Everyone is subject to the "health care tax". But those who purchase insurance get a 100% deduction.
No they have formed a picket line. Have you ever even seen one? Sitting there with signs doesn't do a whole lot of good all the time (though there are plenty where that's all that it amounts to), if there are high tensions, high stakes, and there are actual scabs crossing the line, then fuck yeah there is going to be people being accosted, mostly verbal, and no one is going to move freely in any sense of the word.
And guess what? That's exactly what a DDoS *isn't*. So the comparison sucks. Which was my *entire fucking point*.
Christ, don't people read around here? I mean, really.
A protest is useless if it doesn't actually cause a stir. Even Gandhi was arrested.
LOLFR. Yeah, a bunch of random script kiddies bombarding a website from the comfort of their mothers' basements is exactly the same as Gandhi.
I too have legitimate doubts of your authenticity do to your blinding amounts of fascism
Do you even know what fascism is? Or do you just throw the term around 'cuz it sounds cool?
Seen a few people say they use Adblock and all, which is fine, but if you recognize that an ad-server can be compromised, then why not any other web server you visit?
They can, of course.
But a compromised website is just one site. A compromised ad network means thousands, possibly millions of compromised sites.
It's all about risk management. And the risk associated with a compromised ad network is far greater than the risk associated with a single compromised site.
In hindsight AdBlock solves these kind of things. However I am sure that most people who use AdBlock just do not want to see ads.
I'm not convinced of that.
I'm willing to bet if advertisers returned to simple text and images, and obviated obnoxious flash and animated ads, you'd see far less blocking. These things are fundamentally a) obnoxious, and b) resource intensive, which is why I end up blocking them, and I suspect the same is true of a lot of people.
Fundamentally, for me, ad blocking is about improving the *performance* of the web. Flash is just godawful slow to load, and means I have to wait that much longer to see the content I'm interested in. Return to more simple, less obnoxious ads, and I have little problem unblocking them (as I've done on sites like Ravelry, which have done exactly this).
They are now actually aiding countries like China and Saudi Arabia by exposing all the US information and opinions on them.
They are?
Uhh... how? I mean, this is a pretty fucking bold claim, so I presume you have evidence to back up this wild assertion?
I take it you never tried to cross a Teamster picket line.
Or even a UAW line.
Many forms of protest are called vigilantism by those that don't like it.
If those picketers are accosting people and preventing them from moving freely, then yes, they're vigilantes.
Once again, they may have legitimate grievances. But that doesn't make their actions any more legitimate or honourable.
You have got to be one the biggest pro-establishment trolls I've ever seen on here.
Hint (and this is for moderators, too): Troll != I disagree with you.
Don't like what I have to say? Refute it. Or fuck off. Your choice.
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way.
Bullshit.
No picketer ever stopped someone from entering a store. Such an action would be an arrestable offence, as it would involve, at minimum, the physical assault of prospective customers, and probably trespass.
The point of picketing isn't about physically preventing people from patronizing the business in question. It's to raise awareness so that customers might *choose* to do business elsewhere.
But I suppose it does make what amounts to vigilantism seem a little more palatable if you equate it to a legitimate protesting method.
So, what, every other DDoS wasn't an 'attack", it was an "event"?
Bullshit.
You just don't like the idea that something you happen to support *this time* is being referred to with *accurate*, pejorative terminology.
Well, suck it up, bucko. Your little wannabe-robinhood friends are nothing more than digital gangsters (actually, that's not fair... gangsters have worked hard to build a reputation for themselves, and it's hardly fair to equate them with a bunch of punk script kiddies), and what they're doing is *attacking* websites in a fit of whiny vigilantism.
Now, that's not to say they don't have legitimate grievances. But what they're doing has been called a "distributed denial of service attack" long before these little bastards decided to use it against VISA.
Yeah, but it sounds a lot nicer than "vigilantism", doesn't it?
Well, after engaging my magnificent brain, I see two options: accept it unthinkingly, and think about it. Thinking about it, I can only come up with one reason for the judge to suppress that information: he wanted a guilty verdict
Ah, excellent, so you were in the court room? You understand the full details of the case? What, precisely, the charge was? etc?
Wait... no? You just have an anecdote you heard from somewhere? Oh.
Huh.
Hint: Without the details of the case, *neither* of us have a basis to make a determination either way.
Furthermore, if there *was* shenanigans going on, you can be damned sure the defense attorney of this doctor would've used it as the basis for an appeal. If that didn't happen, I'm going to assume the defense lawyer felt the judge's actions were justified.
Well, I suppose the defense attorney could be on the take, too, right? It is, after all, turtles all the way down...
His name was Robert Paulson, his name was Robert Paulson...
In the marijuana case, it would have been the defense attorney, and the only reason for the defense attorney not to explain that the defendant was a doctor who had complied with state law would be instructions from the judge.
So? There are *many* reasons why a judge may decide certain evidence is inadmissable. Without knowing the specifics of the case, I can't say one way or another. And neither can you.
So put your bias down and try to think with that magnificent organ known as the "brain" that, I presume, you've been gifted with. It can work remarkably well if you actually try to engage it once in a while, rather than relying on your gut to think for you.