I've got white on white here in SeaMonkey on WinXP. Tested it in vanilla firefox with no script blocking or adblocking or anything, and it's still white on white.
Mens rea. Intentionally causing a panic is different than coughing loudly and someone thinking it sounded like "fire". I'm sorry you were so easily startled by the noise.
As for my "lack" of reasoning, I thought it was pretty clear: intentionally causing harm is a limit on free speech that has been accepted for a long time now.
No one made her do it, she chose to do it on her own accord.
The premise behind this thinking has been more or less held invalid since the invention of theaters that may or may not be on fire. Saying something with the intention of causing other people to react in ways that cause harm to themselves or others is generally unacceptable.
acknowledging that people are responsible for their actions.
People are responsible for their actions but inhuman assholes get off scot-free?
The problem is that the prosecutors are apparently under the spell of "Something Must Be Done!" and rather than doing something useful or picking fights they might actually win, they're apparently just throwing random charges at people so that they can appear to be Doing Something.
Yeah, people saying bad things about you kinda sucks, but what's the alternative?
Fire with fire. Name the people that did this so that they'll have to live with the consequences of their actions, hoping that their potential employers won't put their names into google or find their facebook entries. What's the matter, can't they handle having people say bad things about them?
What you can do as a parent- watch your kids. If they're having trouble, figure out how serious it is. Force the school to take action if it gets bad. If it gets really bad, transfer your kid to another school/district.
Heh, everyone's got lists of what to do if your kid is being bullied. I've never seen a list yet that involved talking to the bully's parents and telling them to straighten their kid out before you do.
To me, what separates "patent troll" from "people with cool ideas and patents on them" is that one of them markets their product to people interested in developing them, and the other waits until someone else develops their product and jumps out and says "surprise!" More accurately, trolls try to claim the treble damages reward for "knowingly" infringing on the patent, despite the fact that the first anyone heard of the patent is the C&D after the product is already done and on the market. To keep the suspense up, trolls typically stretch patents in ways that nobody could have anticipated, and usually rely on the brain dead patent "continuation" mechanism to keep a patent application alive while adjusting it to fit what would otherwise be called prior art (PanIP's legendary rampage through the e-commerce sphere at the turn of the century was based on a patent "filed" in 1994 that was a continuation of a patent filed in 1984, meaning that all prior art had to be dated before 1984, even though the patent claimed to have invented things that were in use by others in the decade between).
I don't know how this company does their business, but http://www.intellectualventures.com/inv_main.aspx links to a blog at http://intellectualventureslab.com/ when you want to find out more about their patents. I'm sure if I put "shoot mosquitoes" or "mosquito laser" into google, I'll find that they've invented this, even if I have to "research" past the first page of hits (heck, they're even on the first page for "mosquito zapper").
Of course you shouldn't be able to get insurance for a pre-existing condition. What sort of retard would let someone whose house was on fire buy fire insurance
So once your house burns down, you can never buy fire insurance again? Because that's how the pre-existing condition works for health insurance. You can buy a new house, but you can't buy a new body.
It's been about 7 years since Texas essentially eliminated malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice insurance cost is way down. Health care costs continue to increase. This guy is a malpractice lawyer so he obviously has a bone to pick, but he's got citations. This article is particularly enlightening, it's an article about McAllen, TX, the second most expensive healthcare market in the country, where Medicare alone pays out more money per patient than the residents earn per capita. The interviews with the doctors and hospital staff lays out where that money is going (hint: it's not paying for malpractice insurance).
we develop a great deal of the new treatments, which means that they cost more than the older treatments
So what happened to the older treatments that should presumably cost less? Health care in the US is like going to a car lot and the entire car lot is filled with Rolls Royce limos. The motto appears to be "Why shouldn't you pay half a million dollars, why would you even want anything less than a Rolls?"
Nothing is going to get you any significant (read: enough to reduce the cost of health care) number of new doctors except for socializing med school, and even then it'd require the government to assign children to become doctors "or else".
Otherwise, why would thousands of doctors go through med school and amass a huge stack of debt just to be paid less?
I'm guessing it's progress, but I'd end up with documents that were full of "man, this is the 2nd stupidest hat I've ever had to wear at work" repeated over and over again.
I suspect that would be an improvement for many reports. Now, if halfway through you got "but at least it's not as stupid as the boss's tie", then you're going to have a problem.
The problem is that the "land of the free" keeps on shrinking. I'm watching that out of my office window as we speak: street after street of little houses of varying quality (some are well kept, some with rotting roofs and dead cars in the yard) being bought up and demolished to make room for tall, skinny rows of townhomes. You can bet those townhomes have HOAs, even the ones being squeezed in between the dingy trailer home and the quaint little house that's still painted like a candy cane from Christmas.
Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method."
When I was in high school, we were taught to write essays using the "three-pronged thesis" method. The main reasons for this are because it produces short essays, the essays are easy to grade and it encourages creativity in coming up with bullshit to fill the third paragraph when used in situations where the third paragraph should be unnecessary.
Three-pronged thesis statements produce short essays because they encourage the writer to produce 5 paragraphs. One paragraph is used for the introduction to the essay. The next three are used to expand upon each "prong" of the thesis, one paragraph per prong. The final paragraph is used to conclude the essay, and usually is nothing more than the introductory paragraph re-worded.
In addition, these essays are easy to grade because teachers can check the essay by scanning it for key parts. Many teachers grade these essays by checking to see if the introductory paragraph does have a three-pronged thesis and that the opening sentence of the next three paragraphs each refers to one prong of that three-pronged thesis. Unfortunately, teachers who rely on this cursory grading may overlook that their students had inserted off-topic references to bananas in their essays.
Finally, three-pronged essays encourage making up bullshit like this paragraph when the essay's subject matter just doesn't require three paragraphs to cover. Seriously, who needs three paragraphs to explain why the kid in The Scarlet Ibis died? Kid had a weak heart and died of a heart attack. It was sad, the end.
In conclusion, three-pronged thesis statements lead to short essays that are easy to grade and full of bullshit. I spent entirely too long writing this thing, and if I never write anything like this again, it will be too soon.
If a telco customer can't rely on the telco for providing the proper information that the customer is paying for, then they will lose the customer to a telco who will.
Uh, you do realize that it's not the answerer's telco that's spoofing the caller ID right? If a caller on AT&T spoofs his caller ID and I'm on Verizon, is Verizon supposed to use their psychic powers to figure out the correct ID?
If people actually followed your logic, Verizon would intentionally spoof the caller ID of every call from its network to a competitor in hopes that everyone drops their competing phone companies. Of course, AT&T would do the same to calls to Verizon, and so on. This is an improvement?
Maybe a few can go to a company and say "hello there, I'll work for minimum wage, hire me" and the company will find something for that person to do, but most likely HR will thank them for their time and tell them they'll keep the resume on file.
and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills (over $10,000)
A "catastrophe" isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. Incurable chronic disease is. ALS, Alzheimers, MS, Cancer... if you didn't have insurance before the diagnosis you're just fucked. If you did, most will try their hardest to get out of it (or just wait until the disease renders you unemployed and therefore off their plan), and then you're just fucked.
Modern health insurance is an incurable clusterfuck. The government's plan to fix it just adds more dicks.
The failure is in the belief/fact that health insurance is necessary to keep you alive. Sadly, as long as enough people believe it, it's true, and rather than getting healthcare reform aimed at reducing the cost of healthcare so that people can afford it without needing insurance to pay for it, we get "reform" that is effectively an insurance company bailout (eg mandates etc).
Health insurance is functionally broken until it works like in Eve: when your body breaks insurance gets you a new body. Until then, it's basically useless for its advertised purpose.
That's not the union's fault, its job is to negotiate for more. It's management's job to negotiate for more on their side too.
The problem is that management long since abdicated its responsibility to negotiate properly. This is half entitlement to a labor force (but if I say "no" everyone goes on strike;_;;_;;_;), the other half is simply "we'll sign the contract then declare bankruptcy and throw it in the shredder".
Or to put it simply, if someone is upset about homeowners getting a bailout on the mortgage terms they should have known better than to sign, but they think that unions are evil for tricking management into signing their labor contract, that person is a hypocrite. Legality and appropriateness aside, I hope that Obama's takeover of GM has stabbed this practice in the neck and hopefully from here on out management will think twice before signing over their company's future to the union.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got white on white here in SeaMonkey on WinXP. Tested it in vanilla firefox with no script blocking or adblocking or anything, and it's still white on white.
[citation needed]
That's what the cop said!
since you were mean to me here
Mens rea. Intentionally causing a panic is different than coughing loudly and someone thinking it sounded like "fire". I'm sorry you were so easily startled by the noise.
As for my "lack" of reasoning, I thought it was pretty clear: intentionally causing harm is a limit on free speech that has been accepted for a long time now.
No one made her do it, she chose to do it on her own accord.
The premise behind this thinking has been more or less held invalid since the invention of theaters that may or may not be on fire. Saying something with the intention of causing other people to react in ways that cause harm to themselves or others is generally unacceptable.
acknowledging that people are responsible for their actions.
People are responsible for their actions but inhuman assholes get off scot-free?
The last thing we need is a nanny state waiting to lock us up for hurting someones feelings.
Yeah, punching kids in the head really hurts their "feelings".
The problem is that the prosecutors are apparently under the spell of "Something Must Be Done!" and rather than doing something useful or picking fights they might actually win, they're apparently just throwing random charges at people so that they can appear to be Doing Something.
Yeah, people saying bad things about you kinda sucks, but what's the alternative?
Fire with fire. Name the people that did this so that they'll have to live with the consequences of their actions, hoping that their potential employers won't put their names into google or find their facebook entries. What's the matter, can't they handle having people say bad things about them?
What you can do as a parent- watch your kids. If they're having trouble, figure out how serious it is. Force the school to take action if it gets bad. If it gets really bad, transfer your kid to another school/district.
Heh, everyone's got lists of what to do if your kid is being bullied. I've never seen a list yet that involved talking to the bully's parents and telling them to straighten their kid out before you do.
How the hell did we end up with an entire generation of precious snowflakes that can't take a joke?
The same way we ended up with precious snowflakes who slam girls into lockers and punch them in the head.
To me, what separates "patent troll" from "people with cool ideas and patents on them" is that one of them markets their product to people interested in developing them, and the other waits until someone else develops their product and jumps out and says "surprise!" More accurately, trolls try to claim the treble damages reward for "knowingly" infringing on the patent, despite the fact that the first anyone heard of the patent is the C&D after the product is already done and on the market. To keep the suspense up, trolls typically stretch patents in ways that nobody could have anticipated, and usually rely on the brain dead patent "continuation" mechanism to keep a patent application alive while adjusting it to fit what would otherwise be called prior art (PanIP's legendary rampage through the e-commerce sphere at the turn of the century was based on a patent "filed" in 1994 that was a continuation of a patent filed in 1984, meaning that all prior art had to be dated before 1984, even though the patent claimed to have invented things that were in use by others in the decade between).
I don't know how this company does their business, but http://www.intellectualventures.com/inv_main.aspx links to a blog at http://intellectualventureslab.com/ when you want to find out more about their patents. I'm sure if I put "shoot mosquitoes" or "mosquito laser" into google, I'll find that they've invented this, even if I have to "research" past the first page of hits (heck, they're even on the first page for "mosquito zapper").
Of course you shouldn't be able to get insurance for a pre-existing condition. What sort of retard would let someone whose house was on fire buy fire insurance
So once your house burns down, you can never buy fire insurance again? Because that's how the pre-existing condition works for health insurance. You can buy a new house, but you can't buy a new body.
malpractice insurance costs
It's been about 7 years since Texas essentially eliminated malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice insurance cost is way down. Health care costs continue to increase. This guy is a malpractice lawyer so he obviously has a bone to pick, but he's got citations. This article is particularly enlightening, it's an article about McAllen, TX, the second most expensive healthcare market in the country, where Medicare alone pays out more money per patient than the residents earn per capita. The interviews with the doctors and hospital staff lays out where that money is going (hint: it's not paying for malpractice insurance).
we develop a great deal of the new treatments, which means that they cost more than the older treatments
So what happened to the older treatments that should presumably cost less? Health care in the US is like going to a car lot and the entire car lot is filled with Rolls Royce limos. The motto appears to be "Why shouldn't you pay half a million dollars, why would you even want anything less than a Rolls?"
0 new doctors.
Nothing is going to get you any significant (read: enough to reduce the cost of health care) number of new doctors except for socializing med school, and even then it'd require the government to assign children to become doctors "or else".
Otherwise, why would thousands of doctors go through med school and amass a huge stack of debt just to be paid less?
I'm guessing it's progress, but I'd end up with documents that were full of "man, this is the 2nd stupidest hat I've ever had to wear at work" repeated over and over again.
I suspect that would be an improvement for many reports. Now, if halfway through you got "but at least it's not as stupid as the boss's tie", then you're going to have a problem.
Not quite as catchy as 10 0011 1010 1, but that number just gets you a messenger from among the metal ones.
Yeah? So it is less of a burden to replace my fingers?
If it isn't, then you pay $169 more for a saw that'll save your fingers.
Otherwise, you do what this guy did: buy the cheap saw, lose your finger, then sue because you bought the cheap saw.
The problem is that the "land of the free" keeps on shrinking. I'm watching that out of my office window as we speak: street after street of little houses of varying quality (some are well kept, some with rotting roofs and dead cars in the yard) being bought up and demolished to make room for tall, skinny rows of townhomes. You can bet those townhomes have HOAs, even the ones being squeezed in between the dingy trailer home and the quaint little house that's still painted like a candy cane from Christmas.
Indeed, we were taught something called the "term paper method."
When I was in high school, we were taught to write essays using the "three-pronged thesis" method. The main reasons for this are because it produces short essays, the essays are easy to grade and it encourages creativity in coming up with bullshit to fill the third paragraph when used in situations where the third paragraph should be unnecessary.
Three-pronged thesis statements produce short essays because they encourage the writer to produce 5 paragraphs. One paragraph is used for the introduction to the essay. The next three are used to expand upon each "prong" of the thesis, one paragraph per prong. The final paragraph is used to conclude the essay, and usually is nothing more than the introductory paragraph re-worded.
In addition, these essays are easy to grade because teachers can check the essay by scanning it for key parts. Many teachers grade these essays by checking to see if the introductory paragraph does have a three-pronged thesis and that the opening sentence of the next three paragraphs each refers to one prong of that three-pronged thesis. Unfortunately, teachers who rely on this cursory grading may overlook that their students had inserted off-topic references to bananas in their essays.
Finally, three-pronged essays encourage making up bullshit like this paragraph when the essay's subject matter just doesn't require three paragraphs to cover. Seriously, who needs three paragraphs to explain why the kid in The Scarlet Ibis died? Kid had a weak heart and died of a heart attack. It was sad, the end.
In conclusion, three-pronged thesis statements lead to short essays that are easy to grade and full of bullshit. I spent entirely too long writing this thing, and if I never write anything like this again, it will be too soon.
An eight inch hole?
If we fly to other planets, our probes may need to be able to accommodate any size orifice.
If a telco customer can't rely on the telco for providing the proper information that the customer is paying for, then they will lose the customer to a telco who will.
Uh, you do realize that it's not the answerer's telco that's spoofing the caller ID right? If a caller on AT&T spoofs his caller ID and I'm on Verizon, is Verizon supposed to use their psychic powers to figure out the correct ID?
If people actually followed your logic, Verizon would intentionally spoof the caller ID of every call from its network to a competitor in hopes that everyone drops their competing phone companies. Of course, AT&T would do the same to calls to Verizon, and so on. This is an improvement?
Still can't find a job, or still can't find a job that allows them to live "their prior lifestyle"
http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends/unemployment
The numbers say "still can't find a job."
Maybe a few can go to a company and say "hello there, I'll work for minimum wage, hire me" and the company will find something for that person to do, but most likely HR will thank them for their time and tell them they'll keep the resume on file.
and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills (over $10,000)
A "catastrophe" isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. Incurable chronic disease is. ALS, Alzheimers, MS, Cancer... if you didn't have insurance before the diagnosis you're just fucked. If you did, most will try their hardest to get out of it (or just wait until the disease renders you unemployed and therefore off their plan), and then you're just fucked.
Modern health insurance is an incurable clusterfuck. The government's plan to fix it just adds more dicks.
The failure is in the belief/fact that health insurance is necessary to keep you alive. Sadly, as long as enough people believe it, it's true, and rather than getting healthcare reform aimed at reducing the cost of healthcare so that people can afford it without needing insurance to pay for it, we get "reform" that is effectively an insurance company bailout (eg mandates etc).
Health insurance is functionally broken until it works like in Eve: when your body breaks insurance gets you a new body. Until then, it's basically useless for its advertised purpose.
Obviously it must be one of those national security letters that let them do anything and nobody can talk about having gotten one.
Or where those fingers have been...
now days they have gotten way over done
That's not the union's fault, its job is to negotiate for more. It's management's job to negotiate for more on their side too.
The problem is that management long since abdicated its responsibility to negotiate properly. This is half entitlement to a labor force (but if I say "no" everyone goes on strike ;_; ;_; ;_;), the other half is simply "we'll sign the contract then declare bankruptcy and throw it in the shredder".
Or to put it simply, if someone is upset about homeowners getting a bailout on the mortgage terms they should have known better than to sign, but they think that unions are evil for tricking management into signing their labor contract, that person is a hypocrite. Legality and appropriateness aside, I hope that Obama's takeover of GM has stabbed this practice in the neck and hopefully from here on out management will think twice before signing over their company's future to the union.
He was the "Chief Information Security Officer"
It's a government. His title puts him in line behind the 5000 other Czars and Rulers and Gods and Donors and Nephews and...