Not immediately killing you, and not life threatening are two completely different things. It doesn't sound like you are qualified to make that distinction. There are plenty of conditions that have much better survival and/or quality of life odds if addressed sooner. Each person has to judge how critical their situation is for themselves, and aren't trained to do so. While it is wasteful to go to the ER when unnecessary, if you like living it's better to err on the side of caution.
As to your claim about broken bones and stitches being urgent care. You might be right, you might be wrong. I've looked through a handful of recommendation lists. Some don't list broken bones at all. One listed it under both. Another two listed them under ER. And these are lists from insurance companies and hospitals.
From what I can see.... Amazon has plenty of anime video of a decent variety. However, yes.. it's not part of prime. To me, that sounds like a licensing issue. Most of the content you see that is part of prime is either loss leaders, to draw attention, or content that isn't going to sell well on its own. Anime is a niche enough market. Most likely the projected increase in subscriptions from expanding the selection wouldn't outweigh the increased costs.
There are plenty of uses for their own video platform that would more than qualify as open. It doesn't have to be the entire process is open. Just being open to allowing people to host and watch content is enough to qualify. Just because you attribute a specific definition to the word, doesn't mean everyone has to in every instance of the word.
If we're talking about the apps that get around the permissions system, iPhone users aren't immune to it. It's not as rampant, but it's there. If we're talking about the fact that it's more and more common for apps to track the user and record info, then they're just as vulnerable as any other smartphone.
People on/. obviously have access to the internet and are capable of searching "Comcast throttle Netflix" or "Comcast Netflix net neutrality" or "Comcast peer-to-peer" on their own. I don't need to hand hold them and reiterate what is said in all the articles. Plus, if anyone on here wasn't familiar with the issues.. they would be better served looking it up and making their own judgements.
Aside from the whole Comcast/Netflix mess or Comcast screwing with peer-to-peer traffic? Do we need more? I'm way too lazy and tired to bother looking for more examples.
The NBC article only says two Air Force officials. They don't specifying unnamed, or give names. They just refer to them as two officials. NBC not specifying their names doesn't make them traitors, or fictitious.
So more than one. And that limit is only if you ignore the other choices and focus on the common ones.
If you have two bad choices, you cannot choose either without being screwed over. The only option then is to either pick which devil, or forego an increasingly necessary service.
I've already stated that ends can justify means, but don't always justify means. There is no point trying to bring up obvious examples where they don't. As for net neutrality being an opinion, you're focusing on the wrong point. My belief that we should have an open internet is an opinion. Net neutrality regulation is proven to be required to maintain an open internet. Further, trying to claim 13 ISPs is a joke. There might technically be places with that many options, but most people get to choose between DSL or cable internet. For example, I have a choice between Comcast and Frontier. Neither are customer focused.
You're obviously coming from a different tact and that is all well and good. However, if everything had to be done exactly as the laws(etc.) intend... this country wouldn't exist in the first place. You should not base every decision solely upon the law and how it's intended to be interpreted. I'm not talking anarchy, but there is more than cut and dry law. As for net neutrality being necessary, it isn't an opinion. Government regulation was needed. Net neutrality was a counter to actions ISPs were already taking to restrict open access to the internet. As ISPs are a monopoly/duopoly in a given locale, the only alternative is no internet access. That isn't a viable option for most of society.
I didn't say he said the right reasons were internment camps. I said my right reasons don't involve internment camps. As in, they wouldn't be involved. I also further explained having to weight the means and ends.
Apparently your definition of right reasons is different than mine. My right reasons don't involve internment camps. When dealing with opinion, people are allowed to have their own. Supporting or not supporting actions is based upon a personal opinion of said actions. Ends justify the means only goes so far as the means don't outweigh the ends in importance. Each person has to make that decision on their own. The people in power are supposed to make that decision based upon the needs/will of the people. Obama going through the FCC for net neutrality was, to me(apparently I need to specify opinions as such), the right decision. Stopping ISP abuse of the internet was more immediately important. It was a stopgap. In a perfect world, congress would do what is right for the people instead of their pocket book. They would have enacted law to protect the principle of net neutrality. However, they're beholden to the companies and their party instead of the people.
Do you realize it's perfectly possible to approve of someone's specific actions without approving of the person or the rest of their actions? That you can approve of something that someone did because something needed to be done, even though it wasn't the best way to go about it? Sometimes it's not about how they go about it, but that they're doing it for the right reasons.
Something needed to be done to protect the people. People are bad at realizing how bad things can get unless they see it. People need net neutrality, the principle, even if they don't realize it.
You cannot directly value your personal time the same as your work time. It matters to some extent, but you only have 24hrs in a day. 8hrs work and 8hrs sleep (just simplifying, 7-9 recommended and everyone is different) leaves 8 hours to eat, shower, commute, school, kids, whatever else goes on in your life. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to just go to bed 20min earlier to get that 20min of sleep. However, I'm not them and I'm not going to tell someone how to prioritize their life. As long as they're informed in their actions, then it's no longer a waste.
I can only say that in two years, I've had very few issues with my internet service from Comcast. All of which were upstream issues, or quickly restored. I've yet to need to call them.
Where I am located, my choice is Comcast or Frontier. Frontier wants 70% of the cost, for 20% of the speed of Comcast..... and it isn't like they're any better.
I wasn't giving an opinion, I was stating a fact. Windows 10 is just as viable as Windows 7 as an operating system. There is plenty there to argue about whether it's worth the cost of upgrading, or whether you like the operating system. That comes down to opinion, and everyone is entitled to one.
Oh no, your personal experience completely invalidates everything! I too have used windows since 3.1 and have absolutely no problem with Windows 8 and newer. Further, it's commonly accept that people learn from experience and are more comfortable with what is familiar.
Anyone that thinks Windows 10 isn't a viable replacement for most people is fooling themselves. It's perfectly fine that you don't like it, I'll even agree on some points, but your opinion is only that.
The issue with the average user and linux isn't with the every day use of the system. Standard program interactions, browser, email, word processor, are largely the same. The problem comes when having to do anything beyond day to day activities.
Slashdot Mirror
Not immediately killing you, and not life threatening are two completely different things. It doesn't sound like you are qualified to make that distinction. There are plenty of conditions that have much better survival and/or quality of life odds if addressed sooner. Each person has to judge how critical their situation is for themselves, and aren't trained to do so. While it is wasteful to go to the ER when unnecessary, if you like living it's better to err on the side of caution.
As to your claim about broken bones and stitches being urgent care. You might be right, you might be wrong. I've looked through a handful of recommendation lists. Some don't list broken bones at all. One listed it under both. Another two listed them under ER. And these are lists from insurance companies and hospitals.
From what I can see.... Amazon has plenty of anime video of a decent variety. However, yes.. it's not part of prime. To me, that sounds like a licensing issue. Most of the content you see that is part of prime is either loss leaders, to draw attention, or content that isn't going to sell well on its own. Anime is a niche enough market. Most likely the projected increase in subscriptions from expanding the selection wouldn't outweigh the increased costs.
There are plenty of uses for their own video platform that would more than qualify as open. It doesn't have to be the entire process is open. Just being open to allowing people to host and watch content is enough to qualify. Just because you attribute a specific definition to the word, doesn't mean everyone has to in every instance of the word.
I couldn't bring to mind any specific examples myself, but I knew they existed. But, that's exactly it. They do well enough, but aren't perfect.
If we're talking about the apps that get around the permissions system, iPhone users aren't immune to it. It's not as rampant, but it's there. If we're talking about the fact that it's more and more common for apps to track the user and record info, then they're just as vulnerable as any other smartphone.
People on /. obviously have access to the internet and are capable of searching "Comcast throttle Netflix" or "Comcast Netflix net neutrality" or "Comcast peer-to-peer" on their own. I don't need to hand hold them and reiterate what is said in all the articles. Plus, if anyone on here wasn't familiar with the issues.. they would be better served looking it up and making their own judgements.
Aside from the whole Comcast/Netflix mess or Comcast screwing with peer-to-peer traffic? Do we need more? I'm way too lazy and tired to bother looking for more examples.
If only ISPs were able to do that in the US. No sarcasm, if there was an even remotely free market this wouldn't be an issue.
The NBC article only says two Air Force officials. They don't specifying unnamed, or give names. They just refer to them as two officials. NBC not specifying their names doesn't make them traitors, or fictitious.
No, but that would be a duopoly... as mentioned.
So more than one. And that limit is only if you ignore the other choices and focus on the common ones.
If you have two bad choices, you cannot choose either without being screwed over. The only option then is to either pick which devil, or forego an increasingly necessary service.
I've already stated that ends can justify means, but don't always justify means. There is no point trying to bring up obvious examples where they don't. As for net neutrality being an opinion, you're focusing on the wrong point. My belief that we should have an open internet is an opinion. Net neutrality regulation is proven to be required to maintain an open internet. Further, trying to claim 13 ISPs is a joke. There might technically be places with that many options, but most people get to choose between DSL or cable internet. For example, I have a choice between Comcast and Frontier. Neither are customer focused.
You're obviously coming from a different tact and that is all well and good. However, if everything had to be done exactly as the laws(etc.) intend... this country wouldn't exist in the first place. You should not base every decision solely upon the law and how it's intended to be interpreted. I'm not talking anarchy, but there is more than cut and dry law. As for net neutrality being necessary, it isn't an opinion. Government regulation was needed. Net neutrality was a counter to actions ISPs were already taking to restrict open access to the internet. As ISPs are a monopoly/duopoly in a given locale, the only alternative is no internet access. That isn't a viable option for most of society.
I didn't say he said the right reasons were internment camps. I said my right reasons don't involve internment camps. As in, they wouldn't be involved. I also further explained having to weight the means and ends.
Apparently your definition of right reasons is different than mine. My right reasons don't involve internment camps. When dealing with opinion, people are allowed to have their own. Supporting or not supporting actions is based upon a personal opinion of said actions. Ends justify the means only goes so far as the means don't outweigh the ends in importance. Each person has to make that decision on their own. The people in power are supposed to make that decision based upon the needs/will of the people. Obama going through the FCC for net neutrality was, to me(apparently I need to specify opinions as such), the right decision. Stopping ISP abuse of the internet was more immediately important. It was a stopgap. In a perfect world, congress would do what is right for the people instead of their pocket book. They would have enacted law to protect the principle of net neutrality. However, they're beholden to the companies and their party instead of the people.
Do you realize it's perfectly possible to approve of someone's specific actions without approving of the person or the rest of their actions? That you can approve of something that someone did because something needed to be done, even though it wasn't the best way to go about it? Sometimes it's not about how they go about it, but that they're doing it for the right reasons.
Something needed to be done to protect the people. People are bad at realizing how bad things can get unless they see it. People need net neutrality, the principle, even if they don't realize it.
You cannot directly value your personal time the same as your work time. It matters to some extent, but you only have 24hrs in a day. 8hrs work and 8hrs sleep (just simplifying, 7-9 recommended and everyone is different) leaves 8 hours to eat, shower, commute, school, kids, whatever else goes on in your life. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to just go to bed 20min earlier to get that 20min of sleep. However, I'm not them and I'm not going to tell someone how to prioritize their life. As long as they're informed in their actions, then it's no longer a waste.
I can only say that in two years, I've had very few issues with my internet service from Comcast. All of which were upstream issues, or quickly restored. I've yet to need to call them.
Where I am located, my choice is Comcast or Frontier. Frontier wants 70% of the cost, for 20% of the speed of Comcast..... and it isn't like they're any better.
I wasn't giving an opinion, I was stating a fact. Windows 10 is just as viable as Windows 7 as an operating system. There is plenty there to argue about whether it's worth the cost of upgrading, or whether you like the operating system. That comes down to opinion, and everyone is entitled to one.
Oh no, your personal experience completely invalidates everything! I too have used windows since 3.1 and have absolutely no problem with Windows 8 and newer. Further, it's commonly accept that people learn from experience and are more comfortable with what is familiar.
The reality is it's easier to use Windows than Linux, when you have years of exposure to Windows. So, yes and no.
Anyone that thinks Windows 10 isn't a viable replacement for most people is fooling themselves. It's perfectly fine that you don't like it, I'll even agree on some points, but your opinion is only that.
The issue with the average user and linux isn't with the every day use of the system. Standard program interactions, browser, email, word processor, are largely the same. The problem comes when having to do anything beyond day to day activities.
I'm not saying Congress couldn't pass a law, but they're also paid off by corporations. Financially it would be in their best interest not to.