I'm probably paying for some geriatric coverage that I'll never use until I'm 60. Just like I pay to maintain roads that I'll probably never use. Welcome to society.
It's true that part of the O-care strategy was to get younger, otherwise under-insured, people to subsidize the pool. It's reasonable to disagree with this, but young people got some benefits too. They can stay on their parents plan longer and medicaid was expanded.
I don't believe Obama purposely deceived you as you make it sound. It's true he said you could keep your plan, and he shouldn't have, but political speaches don't lend themselves to asterisks. What he should have said (and probably meant) was that if you like your plan you can keep it if:
A) The insurance company continues selling it (he can't control this)
B) It meets the new minimum coverage guidlines (most will)
Instead of getting so easily upset over progress you should take a look the problems and try to constructively shape the solution. O-care isn't *that* great, but nothing would have changed without it and we needed a change in our health care system.
It sounds like it was always protecting the dealership and harming the consumer. Why would I want to look at lemons? Why would the dealer care if the manufacturer opened their own dealership to sell the lemons?
You pay taxes on your cell phone bill and you pay the gas tax for what you consume on the privately owned NJ Turnpike. The only sure thing in life is death and taxes.
In the US you're taxed for the car you buy (at the time and yearly) as well as the insurance you need to have. Does that mean there shouldn't be a gas tax as well? Welcome to modern society. It costs money.
I think part of the responsibility of the ISP to make the correct peering agreements such that my traffic isn't appreciably slowed within a reasonable area. When I use the default speedtest.net settings I usually see perfect speeds, but that website lets you select further out locations and often the next state over gives me horrible speeds. This is corroborated by lag in video games etc. The point here is that it's not just the ISP's responsibility to give me the advertised speed within their network. Those speeds are irrelevant. I want decent speeds all over my section of the country (at least), and it certainly *IS* the ISP's fault from my perspective if they can't properly deal with their peers.
Maybe by "exxon" the OP was referring to the shareholders (owners)? No one's saying we should confiscate their profits, just limit the destruction they can cause in the pursuit of. You say WE should limit our own consumption of oil, but what you might not have noticed is that WE are trying on certain fronts to do just that. However, companies like exxon invest some of that large profit in preventing government (OUR) action on this front.
How we deal with infestations is a different issue. We can argue that separately if you want, but what I saw was an animal that in all probability was forcibly paralyzed and then made to undergo painful experiments. Just because it's not intelligent doesn't mean it can't feel pain, and we're not talking about saving people's lives here. My position is that they should be doing these experiments on willing and already paralyzed people that want to give back to the scientific community for the sake of future generations. And before you ask, yes I would participate.
These things are expensive toys. You could make the same argument for smartphones in general. Everything my smartphone can do my PC or dumbphone can already do and usually better. It's not necessary, but it's a nice step forward in the new generation of smart devices.
I don't understand yours. You say you want a smartwatch that does a bunch of things which require "imagination". I point out the watch exists and you say you don't want it now.
I guess you haven't done much research, because the Sony smartwatch 2 can do all of those things already. The wireless child tether is a bit much, but it's technically possible with the SW2 if there's an app for it on the phone.
You're not "back to square one", you've just done 99.9% of the job of killing the cancer, pretty much any other anti-cancer method will finish the job for you.
It's possible that at some point before a tumor developed there were 99.9% of cells that should have killed themselves actually doing so. The.1% multiplied into a tumor because there was nothing stopping it. The guy that replied to you was making the point that nature has already created multiple (I think 7 or so) mechanisms to get cells to kill themselves and eventually they all fail one by one due to mutation. Your expensive "inject every cell nucleus" method might fail just the same.
That's not to say it isn't worth pursuing. It could be very effective, but just remember all the other ways nature has already tried to do what you're doing before you get too excited
I use credit cards for 99% of my purchases. That way I avoid the issue of dealing with change and refilling on cash. I've never been held responsible for a fraudulent charge.
The touch screen is non-responsive sometimes and they can create large lines of people who need to A) figure out how the machine works and then B) figure out what flavor they want.
Instead of employing people as patrol cops, they can instead work as artists or scientists or something that makes the world better instead of being a necessary evil.
My neighbors and I are willing to pay a decent amount to keep bad drivers in line. Who will pay for the new art that's created by these would-be cops?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm probably paying for some geriatric coverage that I'll never use until I'm 60. Just like I pay to maintain roads that I'll probably never use. Welcome to society.
It's true that part of the O-care strategy was to get younger, otherwise under-insured, people to subsidize the pool. It's reasonable to disagree with this, but young people got some benefits too. They can stay on their parents plan longer and medicaid was expanded.
I don't believe Obama purposely deceived you as you make it sound. It's true he said you could keep your plan, and he shouldn't have, but political speaches don't lend themselves to asterisks. What he should have said (and probably meant) was that if you like your plan you can keep it if:
A) The insurance company continues selling it (he can't control this)
B) It meets the new minimum coverage guidlines (most will)
Instead of getting so easily upset over progress you should take a look the problems and try to constructively shape the solution. O-care isn't *that* great, but nothing would have changed without it and we needed a change in our health care system.
Check out the smartwatch 3.
It sounds like it was always protecting the dealership and harming the consumer. Why would I want to look at lemons? Why would the dealer care if the manufacturer opened their own dealership to sell the lemons?
You pay taxes on your cell phone bill and you pay the gas tax for what you consume on the privately owned NJ Turnpike. The only sure thing in life is death and taxes.
In the US you're taxed for the car you buy (at the time and yearly) as well as the insurance you need to have. Does that mean there shouldn't be a gas tax as well? Welcome to modern society. It costs money.
I think part of the responsibility of the ISP to make the correct peering agreements such that my traffic isn't appreciably slowed within a reasonable area. When I use the default speedtest.net settings I usually see perfect speeds, but that website lets you select further out locations and often the next state over gives me horrible speeds. This is corroborated by lag in video games etc. The point here is that it's not just the ISP's responsibility to give me the advertised speed within their network. Those speeds are irrelevant. I want decent speeds all over my section of the country (at least), and it certainly *IS* the ISP's fault from my perspective if they can't properly deal with their peers.
Maybe by "exxon" the OP was referring to the shareholders (owners)? No one's saying we should confiscate their profits, just limit the destruction they can cause in the pursuit of. You say WE should limit our own consumption of oil, but what you might not have noticed is that WE are trying on certain fronts to do just that. However, companies like exxon invest some of that large profit in preventing government (OUR) action on this front.
How we deal with infestations is a different issue. We can argue that separately if you want, but what I saw was an animal that in all probability was forcibly paralyzed and then made to undergo painful experiments. Just because it's not intelligent doesn't mean it can't feel pain, and we're not talking about saving people's lives here. My position is that they should be doing these experiments on willing and already paralyzed people that want to give back to the scientific community for the sake of future generations. And before you ask, yes I would participate.
These things are expensive toys. You could make the same argument for smartphones in general. Everything my smartphone can do my PC or dumbphone can already do and usually better. It's not necessary, but it's a nice step forward in the new generation of smart devices.
They've made this "bluetooth 5.0" you speak of. It's called Miracast.
Miracast (wifi direct) was made to solve this.
IANAL, but IDK WTF most of those acronyms mean.
I don't understand yours. You say you want a smartwatch that does a bunch of things which require "imagination". I point out the watch exists and you say you don't want it now.
I guess you haven't done much research, because the Sony smartwatch 2 can do all of those things already. The wireless child tether is a bit much, but it's technically possible with the SW2 if there's an app for it on the phone.
Why the hell are you still living there?
From where do you measure 10gbs a second? What if netflix is getting hammered and can only deliver 5gbs/s per user to their peers? Do you sue comcast?
You're not "back to square one", you've just done 99.9% of the job of killing the cancer, pretty much any other anti-cancer method will finish the job for you.
It's possible that at some point before a tumor developed there were 99.9% of cells that should have killed themselves actually doing so. The .1% multiplied into a tumor because there was nothing stopping it. The guy that replied to you was making the point that nature has already created multiple (I think 7 or so) mechanisms to get cells to kill themselves and eventually they all fail one by one due to mutation. Your expensive "inject every cell nucleus" method might fail just the same.
That's not to say it isn't worth pursuing. It could be very effective, but just remember all the other ways nature has already tried to do what you're doing before you get too excited
Google doesn't actually recommend using the IMEI.
I use credit cards for 99% of my purchases. That way I avoid the issue of dealing with change and refilling on cash. I've never been held responsible for a fraudulent charge.
I thought they removed that feature. Maybe my karma isn't good enough anymore...
The touch screen is non-responsive sometimes and they can create large lines of people who need to A) figure out how the machine works and then B) figure out what flavor they want.
Tmo
I don't know about you, but when I signed up for my cell plan they had me choose an emergency address.
I thought cable's digital phone service is supposed to work like the old fashion copper phone service.
You thought wrong. Get a cell phone.
Instead of employing people as patrol cops, they can instead work as artists or scientists or something that makes the world better instead of being a necessary evil.
My neighbors and I are willing to pay a decent amount to keep bad drivers in line. Who will pay for the new art that's created by these would-be cops?