smarter to spend resources finding and providing care for unbalanced people But, but, if we had gotten speech therapy for Cho Seung-Hui when he was a kid so he wouldn't spend the rest of his life being laughed at every time he opened his mouth, how could we ever assign blame for him shooting up a school to guns/games/doctors/teachers/etc?
The reason is to try to get employers OUT of the healthcare providing business, and to encourage more private purchase, which will drive prices down. Except it won't. Health insurance is doomed to failure. If people had a choice, then healthy people won't buy it, and the rates will go up for the unhealthy, and as more and more unhealthy people find that the cost of their treatment is less than the cost of their insurance, they will drop out too. If people are forced by law to buy it, rates will go up since people have no choice but to buy insurance. Employer-based insurance is itself awful, but it's pretty much the only way to make insurance actually affordable by producing large enough cost-sharing pools without government coercion.
I'm sure the government would be happy to use your excuse to tax it though.
So the insurance companies pay The insurance companies have contracts with the hospitals that dictate what they will and will not pay. So it's just the individuals that pay.
require a PIN for any transaction that was sensitive or that was over x dollars? But then how would the credit agency make their money off of fraudsters?! If they couldn't collect their $x every time an identity thief opens an account that requires a credit check, they'd go broke!
Also, I believe these smaller permits are free and available online. Is that still violating freedom of the press? The forms to apply for the permits are available online. As for freedom of the press, what if another skyscraper gets blown up and it takes 30 days (as permitted by the new pending rule, not the old forms you linked) to get a permit to cover it?
As for option 2, I tried that first since I didn't have Firebug installed, and it appears that slahdot does some kind of referrer checking, which is probably a very good thing;)
So the difference is a preference the user can set?
My guess is that it's a preference I can set to decide how I want to see your post.
That's my guess anyway, since apparently when I signed up for the University of Michigan testing stuff it clobbered my account profile with whatever was going on at the time and now none of this "discussion2" stuff works. I don't even get this "checkbox on any article page". I can turn on and off the Michigan stuff in my profile, but the majority of the time it wouldn't work in FF or IE, and I ended up leaving it disabled.
I thought my ISP was doing this but when I called to complain the helpful tech support person told me that the sites I was visiting must have added new ads to them, since they would never do such a thing. Thanks for reassuring me, John!
So, slashdot, why are you running 50 ads at the top of every page? I thought when I subscribed I wouldn't have to see these anymore, but since you don't have a friendly guy I can call to talk to about it, I'll have to assume you're trying to screw me over here.
At least in the USA you have to be given enough time off to vote.
How much is enough? If you come in a half day late because the election organizers dropped the wrong machines off at your precinct and when the correct machines were brought in hours later, half of them didn't work, is that "enough time off"?
Now, when I download something, I know it must be fully legal to download thanks to my ever so helpful AT&T DSL connection filtering out all those nasty pirates! Thanks guys! I'll be sure to forward any legal notices I receive on to you!
when the police themselves turn that argument around on you.
I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, it was the police and government that came up with it first, time and time again.
And time and time again, when it's turned against them, they whine and cry. Whether it's mayors having an apoplectic fit when people go through their "public" trash or cops throwing the book at people for filming them in public where they have "no reasonable expectation of privacy", the government takes the first step in taking your privacy from you, and when people turn that loss against the government, the reaction exposes the clearly hypocritical acts of those in charge.
And by God, I'm glad SOMEONE finally got around to figuring it out. Of course you're right, it seems so obvious now, but back in the seventies nobody would have given it a second thought, after all, that's how it had always been done, you wanted to search for a plumber, well, you opened up the National Yellow Pages to the plumber section and start calling until you find one in your city. Sure, the young whipper-snappers here never had to deal with that thanks to the fine geniuses who invented the regional Yellow Pages, but back in the corporate boom of the 80's, we had to have our foundation repaired just because the book fell off the forklift onto the front porch one year and snapped the slab clean in half.
This is just another <boomingvoice>ON THE INTERNET!</boomingvoice> patent that takes what Pizza Hut has been able to do for years (tell you which store was the closest for delivering to you) before the invention of the internet.
Only a fucking eight year old would use that kind of retarded logic.
That and trademark law. Think upon that.
Just because you want to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it
The usual confusion of "freedom to" and "freedom from". Eventually people will realize what the founding fathers did, that giving everyone the "freedom to" do whatever they want causes conflicts while giving people the "freedom from" interference resolves them.
Look at it this way, why don't we take your idea here and run with it. Let's put the rapists in charge of crisis centers and murderers in charge of prisons, after all, they have "background" in the field.
Slashdot Mirror
Was I supposed to be arguing against treating crazy people in favor of banning guns, games, books, porn, and just about everything else?
Crazy people such as politicians are why we can't have nice things.
I'm sure the government would be happy to use your excuse to tax it though.
How do you tell a female @ from a male @?
Haha wow, thanks. Firebug fixed it.
;)
As for option 2, I tried that first since I didn't have Firebug installed, and it appears that slahdot does some kind of referrer checking, which is probably a very good thing
Political power, on the other hand, is the ability to threaten with and carry out physical violence
So, where does that put hitmen? The mafia? Mining corporations whose hired militas killed the wives and children of striking workers?
Or for a more modern look, how about companies that save a few cents per tube of toothpaste by poisoning their customers?
Kneuer makes a total idiot of himself, but remains generally calm.
Damn, I was hoping to see a video of him dancing like a monkey and screaming "Capitalism! Capitalism! Capitalism!"
So the difference is a preference the user can set?
My guess is that it's a preference I can set to decide how I want to see your post.
That's my guess anyway, since apparently when I signed up for the University of Michigan testing stuff it clobbered my account profile with whatever was going on at the time and now none of this "discussion2" stuff works. I don't even get this "checkbox on any article page". I can turn on and off the Michigan stuff in my profile, but the majority of the time it wouldn't work in FF or IE, and I ended up leaving it disabled.
I thought my ISP was doing this but when I called to complain the helpful tech support person told me that the sites I was visiting must have added new ads to them, since they would never do such a thing. Thanks for reassuring me, John!
So, slashdot, why are you running 50 ads at the top of every page? I thought when I subscribed I wouldn't have to see these anymore, but since you don't have a friendly guy I can call to talk to about it, I'll have to assume you're trying to screw me over here.
"OMG that's still teh 3vil cens0rship!!!1!"
It's still censorship, but as I said, child porn is more evil than censorship, and therefore censorship of it is not evil.
However, it's still damaging, how much bullshit has gone on under the banner of "think of the children!"?
At least in the USA you have to be given enough time off to vote.
How much is enough? If you come in a half day late because the election organizers dropped the wrong machines off at your precinct and when the correct machines were brought in hours later, half of them didn't work, is that "enough time off"?
Restricting images for legality is different than censoship in the common parlance
Making images illegal is censorship in any parlance.
In this case, society by and large has decided that the damage done by child porn is a greater harm than the damage done by the censorship of it.
Now, when I download something, I know it must be fully legal to download thanks to my ever so helpful AT&T DSL connection filtering out all those nasty pirates! Thanks guys! I'll be sure to forward any legal notices I receive on to you!
and go with the company that will give the 'proper' service.
And in a monopoly, that company is......
It makes up something like 25% of mass of the earths crust.
Yeah, but that's all mixed up with that damn dirt.
Looking at that verification scheme, I'm becoming increasingly more worried about losing my identity than having it taken from me.
when the police themselves turn that argument around on you.
I'm sorry, but you have it backwards, it was the police and government that came up with it first, time and time again.
And time and time again, when it's turned against them, they whine and cry. Whether it's mayors having an apoplectic fit when people go through their "public" trash or cops throwing the book at people for filming them in public where they have "no reasonable expectation of privacy", the government takes the first step in taking your privacy from you, and when people turn that loss against the government, the reaction exposes the clearly hypocritical acts of those in charge.
this certainly is not an obvious idea.
And by God, I'm glad SOMEONE finally got around to figuring it out. Of course you're right, it seems so obvious now, but back in the seventies nobody would have given it a second thought, after all, that's how it had always been done, you wanted to search for a plumber, well, you opened up the National Yellow Pages to the plumber section and start calling until you find one in your city. Sure, the young whipper-snappers here never had to deal with that thanks to the fine geniuses who invented the regional Yellow Pages, but back in the corporate boom of the 80's, we had to have our foundation repaired just because the book fell off the forklift onto the front porch one year and snapped the slab clean in half.
This is just another <boomingvoice>ON THE INTERNET!</boomingvoice> patent that takes what Pizza Hut has been able to do for years (tell you which store was the closest for delivering to you) before the invention of the internet.
Only a fucking eight year old would use that kind of retarded logic.
That and trademark law. Think upon that.
Just because you want to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it
The usual confusion of "freedom to" and "freedom from". Eventually people will realize what the founding fathers did, that giving everyone the "freedom to" do whatever they want causes conflicts while giving people the "freedom from" interference resolves them.
What makes this wrong?
It's a conflict of interest.
Look at it this way, why don't we take your idea here and run with it. Let's put the rapists in charge of crisis centers and murderers in charge of prisons, after all, they have "background" in the field.