The people get fucked even harder, and the healthcare system still makes obscene profits. I guess its a win-win situation, right?
Lose-lose, actually. Because the profits you are talking about simply do not exist. So much so, health-insurers close the shop and simply withdraw from certain (highly progressive) states.
The difference you are looking for is between "telegraph" and "network", and "human" and "computer", not between "computer" and "telegraph".
The similarity you are missing is that in both cases new technology was/is used by some traders to gain advantage over others. In both cases the advantage thus gained is deemed — by some — to be "unfair", immoral, and — if they could do anything about it — illegal.
When telegraph was first used to pass data (both trading orders and share price-affecting information) around, I'm sure, it was also seen by some as "dishonest", "unscrupulous", and "disadvantaging small players"...
Well, if NSA going through your electronic mails — without even touching anything tangible in your house — is a violation of the 4th Amendment, then the distinction you are trying to make regarding copying electronic data is without (much) difference...
the 4th amendment argument is actually quite weak in this scenario and feels more like you're trying to use something unrelated to get your way
Well, if the 1st Amendment was used to establish a right to sell pornography, then the 4th may as well be used against the government browsing through our electronic records in addition to any tangible personal effects... (And the 2nd, BTW, should allow us to keep and bear any arms, which we can, ahem, "keep and bear" — including the "assault" variety.)
I don't have a real FB account, hence the need for a fake one
That's a fairly bizarre statement and I can't help venturing off-topic. I, for one, do not have an FB account — neither fake nor real — and fail to see, why would anyone "need" one... Care to elaborate?
I grew up in the USSR and have not become a Communist. I then moved to the US and ended up in the Northeastern part of it. In the twenty years here I have not become a Socialist (read Communist-light) either.
In other words, I think, I'm quite resistant to brainwashing, thank you very much...
Maybe, these two should not have been in the same category? Only one of them is anti-social and encourages the player to break laws and norms. In the other the player's "duty" is to defeat his country's enemies... Remember: "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
If the study really treated the two games the same (RTFA? What RTFA?) — based purely on the "violence", the negative effects of one game may have been canceled by the positive effects of the other...
Exactly my feelings. It is one thing to block the ads completely — they waste my bandwidth and RAM, slow down page-loading, and degrade my privacy. But if any ad makes it through anyway, I'd rather it be related to something I may be remotely interested in.
The monoculture of the public-school programs set for the entire nation by the federal Department of Education does not bother you, does it? It is only the fact, that one particular city is advancing it using a particular family of devices, that you find troubling...
This is one of the main reasons I want this country to abandon its two-party system.
Oh, not again. Every once in a while ignorant people complain about America's "two-party system" — failing to account for the vast differences between our political system and that of most of the Democracies of the world.
You see, we do not have parties in the same sense as other countries. Voters here vote for individuals, whose party-affiliation is fluid and non-binding. Every once in a while an elected official may switch their party — without any legal consequences. In other countries voters vote for a party, who then pick individual politicians to fill the slots the legislature. The number of slots is in proportion to the total number share of votes won by the party.
Though some State-laws regulate the parties in the US, there is nothing about them in our Constitution or Federal Law. And for good reason — Americans vote for individuals, not parties. Whether that's "better" or "worse" is another topic, but it is different. There is no law regulating the establishing of a party, or how it is operated. Oh, and we have multiple parties: Communists of different kind (as usual for them), Libertarians, Green... That they aren't winning many offices is not the fault of the system...
BTW, if you think, a multi-party system (however it is achieved) will automatically be better — think again.
"Freedom of Association" is the freedom to Unionize.
No more so, than a freedom to form a bowling league or a book club. Now imagine it being mandatory to join the league in order to bowl Saturday night... Freedom of Association gives you the freedom to hang out with whomever you wish, but it does not obligate me to recognize your association as anything.
It is this mandate, that Unions (seek to) impose on everybody else, that you will not find in the Constitution.
Why do you hate the free market and America so much anyway?
Cute.
there is always a moron somewhere willing to work for free [...]
Oh, so now we come to discussing, why the Unions seek the power, that you alleged is their right...
Well, there is always a moron somewhere willing to give you a free X-Box in exchange for the promise of you buying games from him. Would you support retailers being legally forbidden from offering such specials? Would you support a restaurant voting itself to become your sole provider of take-outs? Because that's exactly the power available today to unions: once employees vote to form a union (or join an existing one), the employer can not hire anyone outside the union.
There is no "them" vs. "us" — we are all buyers and sellers in the market-place. What is applicable to vendors of food, books, games, or services, is just as applicable to vendors of labor (ourselves). The only difference is, sellers of labor have more votes. In a fair world, this should not make them any powerful in the free market, that you profess to love...
with management, when they face the same situations in the work place.
Are you seriously equating abusive managers with government dictators? Wow...
If you fire someone because of their skin color, religion, ethnicity, gender, or age then you have illegally discriminated against them
The non-discrimination laws you are referring to have nothing to do with unions.
Unionization is just as much an American right as the right to bear arms.
Is it? Then, please, cite the relevant Article of the Constitution or Amendment. You can't. The most you can scrape is "freedom of association" — and I have no problem with that whatsoever. People ought to be free to unionize to their heart's content, but such unions can not have any more legal power, than bowling leagues or reading clubs. Unfortunately, they do have a lot more power than that: you can not, for example, be a carpenter in New York City without being a union-member.
If you don't like Unions then don't work with them or buy from them, after all that's what we're told when we complain about Walmart.
If Walmart were to conspire with K-Mart to raise prices of their wares, they'll be subject to anti-trust laws — and rightly so. Individual employees unionizing to raise the price of their labor are not any different morally — and should be treated the same legally.
If the US saw fit to block the merger of Staples and Office Depot once — for fear, the resulting entity will become a monopoly in the market of the freaking office supplies, why do we not only tolerate, but encourage monopolies in the markets of law-enforcement, firefighting, healthcare, mass-transit, and public school labor?
Unions always were — and remain today — (wanna-be) monopolies seeking to maintain and ever increase the prices of what their members are selling (their labor).
Pure pseudo-libertarian 1%er bullshit. Anyone qualified can get the job and join the union.
There is a subtle difference between "can join the union" and "must join the union". Once joining the union becomes mandatory for being able to sell one's labor, the union becomes just as bad a monopoly as Standard Oil ever was...
Are you lying deliberately, or are you unsophisticated enough to actually believe that horse shit?
I'm being deliberately honest. You, sir, need to learn some debating etiquette, if you wish to, uhm, debate with people, who don't already agree with you.
Under the program, the records, showing things like time and length of call, can only be examined for suspected connections to terrorism
It just seems wasteful to limit the data-use to counter-terrorism only. After all, far more people die from drunk driving than from terrorism. How long until the program is expanded to search for clues on would-be drunk-driving? "Hey, buddy, I had a few too many — can you pick me up? No? Oh, well, I guess, I'll make it..."
Well, may be, not right a way. But surely searching for child molesters would be a worthy application of this system, wouldn't it? And ye "good old" rapists and murderers? And tax-evaders?.. Voila, pre-emptively recording conversations (or just meta-data about them) it is as common a crime-fighting tool as fingerprints or DNA-samples, which are already taken pre-emptively too.
and there is no such thing as "wrongful termination" really — we are all employees "at will": neither the employees nor the employers are indentured and can leave or be let go at any time;
As for "disposable cogs", "respect", and "dignity" these concepts just nebulous as they always have been — and not because Hoffa failed, but because they simply can not codified into law any more than, say, love or, indeed, respect and dignity can be.
Unions always were — and remain today — (wanna-be) monopolies seeking to maintain and ever increase the prices of what their members are selling (their labor). Plumber Joe and plumber Jim joining a union to be able to get 10% higher prices for their work is not any different than "Joe's Burger" and "Jim's Burger" agreeing to raise their prices on the same day. Unfortunately, America's anti-trust laws apply only in the latter case, even though the former ought to be just as criminal.
no way to protect yourself on the Internets except to be a law-abiding person.
Ain't gonna help you... Phone- and video-sex are still legal, for just one example. But, if you've ever any of that, a dedicated law-enforcer may use that as a leverage to blackmail you later in life. Or pass the embarrassing records to some non-government organization. IRS have already done that.All for the Greater Good, of course.
It does not even have to be ordered from the top: recall the Joe the Plumber incident. The man asked Obama — then merely a presidential candidate — an inconvenient question and a government official (those guys always favor the party of bigger government) leaked his personal information so as to make it easier to spin things Obama's way. The three officials involved merely lost their jobs for it — but none even paid a fine, much less served jail time.
So if Verizon refused to hand over the records, that would be another story.
And even if Verizon had the inclination (and the balls) to fight it, they would've suddenly found themselves the subject of scrutiny by the IRS, the SEC, the Labor Department, the FCC, and, possibly, some other friendly government agencies.
Is not it great, we have so many regulations, the Executive branch does not even need to bother the Judiciary to get its way? I, for one, do appreciate, they decided to bother this time, but, really, they did not have to...
Oh, and in only a couple of decades, as the government's control of healthcare extends further and deeper, the same benevolent Executive officials will have the power to decide, who lives, and who dies:
We regret to inform you, but upon the review of your life support system in accordance with XIXIXIXX section C part Y, it was determined, that the ongoing cost of the care outweigh the benefits. As a result, the assisted breathing/feeding tube (circle all that apply) will be turned off at 11:59pm EST, tomorrow.
That the individuals supporting the regime in power will be deemed eligible for remaining on life-support for, on average, 50% longer than the opposition, will be nothing other than a coincidence, of course.
I hate to break this to you, but for-profits are for profit. Why would they help a third party, and inevitably reduce their profit?
First, quite a few for-profits find it to be good PR to spend advertising monies on "good causes". But I was talking about people working there. The employees, you know... Having a job, when 10% (more, really) of others do not, puts one into a position to donate some money to a good cause. Whereas working for a non-profit is less likely to.
Oh, and, in addition, you have the satisfaction of knowing, you are working on something people actually want -- because they are willing to pay money for it -- rather than something, you think, they should want...
The NRA was founded in 1871 after the Civil War by Army and Navy Journal editor William Conant Church (pictured above) and General George Wood Wingate of the Union Army, who were both dismayed at the horrible accuracy of Union soldiers during the Civil War. The original purpose of the organization was for rifle marksmanship training. However despite this, the NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. [emphasis mine]
The supposed rebuttal, to which you linked, cites a single study, which did not rebut the original assertion by John Lott. The large collection of people authoring it could not come up to any conclusion — in their esteemed opinion, there is no link between the carry laws and the murder rate. From your link:
We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.
So, if John Lott is right, relaxing concealed carry laws will help. If he is wrong, it will not hurt. What grounds are there, again, for the massive violations of the 2nd Amendment, that you and yours are demanding?
Nasty regimes in need to hide their mismanagement of their own country with a war, as well as criminals — they all prefer unarmed victims.
Thus, personal weapon is a perfectly peaceful symbol. Being able to print one — and keep it at home — is a good way to protect one's domicile, without begging the government for a permission to exercise the Constitution-guaranteed right.
Slashdot Mirror
Lose-lose, actually. Because the profits you are talking about simply do not exist. So much so, health-insurers close the shop and simply withdraw from certain (highly progressive) states.
With any luck the next President will be from the sensible party and officially postpone implementation of Obamacare indefinitely.
The similarity you are missing is that in both cases new technology was/is used by some traders to gain advantage over others. In both cases the advantage thus gained is deemed — by some — to be "unfair", immoral, and — if they could do anything about it — illegal.
When telegraph was first used to pass data (both trading orders and share price-affecting information) around, I'm sure, it was also seen by some as "dishonest", "unscrupulous", and "disadvantaging small players"...
Well, if NSA going through your electronic mails — without even touching anything tangible in your house — is a violation of the 4th Amendment, then the distinction you are trying to make regarding copying electronic data is without (much) difference...
Well, if the 1st Amendment was used to establish a right to sell pornography, then the 4th may as well be used against the government browsing through our electronic records in addition to any tangible personal effects... (And the 2nd, BTW, should allow us to keep and bear any arms, which we can, ahem, "keep and bear" — including the "assault" variety.)
That's a fairly bizarre statement and I can't help venturing off-topic. I, for one, do not have an FB account — neither fake nor real — and fail to see, why would anyone "need" one... Care to elaborate?
In other words, I think, I'm quite resistant to brainwashing, thank you very much...
Maybe, these two should not have been in the same category? Only one of them is anti-social and encourages the player to break laws and norms. In the other the player's "duty" is to defeat his country's enemies... Remember: "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
If the study really treated the two games the same (RTFA? What RTFA?) — based purely on the "violence", the negative effects of one game may have been canceled by the positive effects of the other...
Exactly my feelings. It is one thing to block the ads completely — they waste my bandwidth and RAM, slow down page-loading, and degrade my privacy. But if any ad makes it through anyway, I'd rather it be related to something I may be remotely interested in.
The monoculture of the public-school programs set for the entire nation by the federal Department of Education does not bother you, does it? It is only the fact, that one particular city is advancing it using a particular family of devices, that you find troubling...
UN ambassadors are not US-citizens. Since the Roman Republic, the Executive has full legal power over foreigners.
Oh, not again. Every once in a while ignorant people complain about America's "two-party system" — failing to account for the vast differences between our political system and that of most of the Democracies of the world.
You see, we do not have parties in the same sense as other countries. Voters here vote for individuals, whose party-affiliation is fluid and non-binding. Every once in a while an elected official may switch their party — without any legal consequences. In other countries voters vote for a party, who then pick individual politicians to fill the slots the legislature. The number of slots is in proportion to the total number share of votes won by the party.
Though some State-laws regulate the parties in the US, there is nothing about them in our Constitution or Federal Law. And for good reason — Americans vote for individuals, not parties. Whether that's "better" or "worse" is another topic, but it is different. There is no law regulating the establishing of a party, or how it is operated. Oh, and we have multiple parties: Communists of different kind (as usual for them), Libertarians, Green... That they aren't winning many offices is not the fault of the system...
BTW, if you think, a multi-party system (however it is achieved) will automatically be better — think again.
No more so, than a freedom to form a bowling league or a book club. Now imagine it being mandatory to join the league in order to bowl Saturday night... Freedom of Association gives you the freedom to hang out with whomever you wish, but it does not obligate me to recognize your association as anything.
It is this mandate, that Unions (seek to) impose on everybody else, that you will not find in the Constitution.
Cute.
Oh, so now we come to discussing, why the Unions seek the power, that you alleged is their right...
Well, there is always a moron somewhere willing to give you a free X-Box in exchange for the promise of you buying games from him. Would you support retailers being legally forbidden from offering such specials? Would you support a restaurant voting itself to become your sole provider of take-outs? Because that's exactly the power available today to unions: once employees vote to form a union (or join an existing one), the employer can not hire anyone outside the union.
There is no "them" vs. "us" — we are all buyers and sellers in the market-place. What is applicable to vendors of food, books, games, or services, is just as applicable to vendors of labor (ourselves). The only difference is, sellers of labor have more votes. In a fair world, this should not make them any powerful in the free market, that you profess to love...
Are you seriously equating abusive managers with government dictators? Wow...
The non-discrimination laws you are referring to have nothing to do with unions.
Is it? Then, please, cite the relevant Article of the Constitution or Amendment. You can't. The most you can scrape is "freedom of association" — and I have no problem with that whatsoever. People ought to be free to unionize to their heart's content, but such unions can not have any more legal power, than bowling leagues or reading clubs. Unfortunately, they do have a lot more power than that: you can not, for example, be a carpenter in New York City without being a union-member.
If Walmart were to conspire with K-Mart to raise prices of their wares, they'll be subject to anti-trust laws — and rightly so. Individual employees unionizing to raise the price of their labor are not any different morally — and should be treated the same legally.
If the US saw fit to block the merger of Staples and Office Depot once — for fear, the resulting entity will become a monopoly in the market of the freaking office supplies, why do we not only tolerate, but encourage monopolies in the markets of law-enforcement, firefighting, healthcare, mass-transit, and public school labor?
There is a subtle difference between "can join the union" and "must join the union". Once joining the union becomes mandatory for being able to sell one's labor, the union becomes just as bad a monopoly as Standard Oil ever was...
I'm being deliberately honest. You, sir, need to learn some debating etiquette, if you wish to, uhm, debate with people, who don't already agree with you.
It just seems wasteful to limit the data-use to counter-terrorism only. After all, far more people die from drunk driving than from terrorism. How long until the program is expanded to search for clues on would-be drunk-driving? "Hey, buddy, I had a few too many — can you pick me up? No? Oh, well, I guess, I'll make it..."
Well, may be, not right a way. But surely searching for child molesters would be a worthy application of this system, wouldn't it? And ye "good old" rapists and murderers? And tax-evaders?.. Voila, pre-emptively recording conversations (or just meta-data about them) it is as common a crime-fighting tool as fingerprints or DNA-samples, which are already taken pre-emptively too.
As for "disposable cogs", "respect", and "dignity" these concepts just nebulous as they always have been — and not because Hoffa failed, but because they simply can not codified into law any more than, say, love or, indeed, respect and dignity can be.
Unions always were — and remain today — (wanna-be) monopolies seeking to maintain and ever increase the prices of what their members are selling (their labor). Plumber Joe and plumber Jim joining a union to be able to get 10% higher prices for their work is not any different than "Joe's Burger" and "Jim's Burger" agreeing to raise their prices on the same day. Unfortunately, America's anti-trust laws apply only in the latter case, even though the former ought to be just as criminal.
Ain't gonna help you... Phone- and video-sex are still legal, for just one example. But, if you've ever any of that, a dedicated law-enforcer may use that as a leverage to blackmail you later in life. Or pass the embarrassing records to some non-government organization. IRS have already done that.All for the Greater Good, of course.
It does not even have to be ordered from the top: recall the Joe the Plumber incident. The man asked Obama — then merely a presidential candidate — an inconvenient question and a government official (those guys always favor the party of bigger government) leaked his personal information so as to make it easier to spin things Obama's way. The three officials involved merely lost their jobs for it — but none even paid a fine, much less served jail time.
And even if Verizon had the inclination (and the balls) to fight it, they would've suddenly found themselves the subject of scrutiny by the IRS, the SEC, the Labor Department, the FCC, and, possibly, some other friendly government agencies.
Is not it great, we have so many regulations, the Executive branch does not even need to bother the Judiciary to get its way? I, for one, do appreciate, they decided to bother this time, but, really, they did not have to...
Oh, and in only a couple of decades, as the government's control of healthcare extends further and deeper, the same benevolent Executive officials will have the power to decide, who lives, and who dies:
That the individuals supporting the regime in power will be deemed eligible for remaining on life-support for, on average, 50% longer than the opposition, will be nothing other than a coincidence, of course.
First, quite a few for-profits find it to be good PR to spend advertising monies on "good causes". But I was talking about people working there. The employees, you know... Having a job, when 10% (more, really) of others do not, puts one into a position to donate some money to a good cause. Whereas working for a non-profit is less likely to.
Oh, and, in addition, you have the satisfaction of knowing, you are working on something people actually want -- because they are willing to pay money for it -- rather than something, you think, they should want...
Earn your money, then buy a kid a computer... Would be better for both of you.
Yes and no:
The supposed rebuttal, to which you linked, cites a single study, which did not rebut the original assertion by John Lott. The large collection of people authoring it could not come up to any conclusion — in their esteemed opinion, there is no link between the carry laws and the murder rate. From your link:
So, if John Lott is right, relaxing concealed carry laws will help. If he is wrong, it will not hurt. What grounds are there, again, for the massive violations of the 2nd Amendment, that you and yours are demanding?
Thus, personal weapon is a perfectly peaceful symbol. Being able to print one — and keep it at home — is a good way to protect one's domicile, without begging the government for a permission to exercise the Constitution-guaranteed right.