The majority of those US deaths are suicide. But even if you want to count them you are purposely ignoring the fact that gun deaths still occur even when there are laws making guns hard to get. But you are also ignoring the entire points made in order to spout something. Having a gun that would kill you if you needed to use it is a extremely stupid idea and can be the cause of your death either by attempted action or inaction. It would resign you to death with absolutely no chance of changing that unless someone with a gun shows up first
The point is that the number of people killed by terrorism is so ridiculously low compared to gun related deaths that to use self protection from terrorists as a justification for unregulated gun ownership is therefore beyond ridiculous.
How could a federal database of people with mental health problems (instantly searchable during the background check) possibly be in compliance with HIPAA?
When you apply for a gun permit no doubt you are giving permission to the feds to be able to search your relevant medical records.
Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
Let's compare the number of Americans killed by gun deaths on US soil (406,496) vs. the number of Americans killed by terrorism globally for the same period 2001 to 2013 (3,380), and then consider if easy availability of guns for self defense is realistic or just a nice dream.
It's worth pointing out that the U.S. became the industrial powerhouse it is by ignoring European patent and copyright law during the late 1800s/early 1900s, and illegally building tools and products based on European designs.
I'm of the opinion that IP holders have gotten fat and lazy by manipulating the legal process to extend IP law and duration far, far beyond the point where it's helpful to the economy. And if China can build this stuff cheaper and better by flaunting IP law, then the world will be better for it even if it screws over the IP holders. That's not to say IP is useless. Just that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and it needs to be swung back to return us to the point where IP law is benefiting society.
Do you imagine that because the Chinese (or whomever) ignore IP that IP law will somehow improve in the west? I don't follow the logic.
Or are you just saying that it's good that they can flaunt IP law so that you can have cheaper product?
p>Chinese IP law may not be the same as the US's - they're a different country, you know they are allowed their own laws, they don't have to have yours. If they can compete better by not having the US-style copyright nightmare - good for them - without Disney on their backs they can compete far better than you can
Imagine for a moment that you earned your living by being creative, that you worked months or years developing, designing, inventing something that was then mass copied, technology stolen, whatever without anything coming back to you as recompense - you then finding yourself competing against the same product or a product with technology copied from you but being sold at 1/300th of the price that you need to get for it just to be able to pay your living?
I suppose that's probably being your ability to imagine, as if you were an imaginative creative person you would perhaps have created something that you would want to be compensated fairly for - your post showing the opposite.
Your tactic of preemptively belittling valid arguments in your post is interesting.
"Don't believe me? Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat."
Because contrary to your assertion you can't actually know someone's religion if you don't have existing information on them other than by either making assumptions based on appearances, and as some of the worst offenders in IS are converts those assumptions aren't going to be accurate, or by counting on them to be honest when they fill in the landing form which seems unlikely to be useful.
As to your assertion that it must be okay to do because we've done it before...that's just stupid.
Oh my god a socialist! Run for the hills!
You're really quite funny. You say that using terms like 'bigot, predjudiced, racist, and extremist' are not rational (though interestingly you do not group them being used to describe Trump with the 'outright lies') and then you exclaim against socialism like it's the worst sexual disease one could contract.
With a poverty level of 24.4% in 2013 (about the same as Jennings, MO), New Haven CT certainly has no fewer kids in need than it did in my time so I don't see the need for such homes decreasing - and if anything the opposite.
New Haven, along with most of the large cities in Connecticut, is a welfare city. The evidence is right in front of you. For instance the largest percentage of Puerto Ricans in the country is in Connecticut (7.1% vs the national average of 1.5%) because of how liberal Connecticut's welfare system is (people are motivated by incentives.)
What Connecticut doesnt need is more welfare. What it needs is (a) more low skill jobs, or (b) less low skill people. Those are the two solutions. The Democrats that run the State manage to continually enact policies that accomplish the opposite of both solutions.
So you're racist in addition to being stupid.
I'm guessing that you were born wealthy enough not to have to rely on state funding so I can make some allowance for you not actually knowing what you're talking.
Connecticut's welfare system basically saved my life. From a family where we didn't have enough to eat, never mind to buy things like clothing or shoes to a good life. I've been making six figures for a long time now and my taxes go back into the system.
Because I was able to break out of that lock that many poor people are under my children will never know the poverty that I knew growing up, nor, I expect will theirs.
Without welfare, there is zero chance of the poor breaking out of being poor. Your suggestions as alternatives to welfare are both ridiculous. (a) low skill jobs do not pay enough to raise a family on and (b) you either have to skill people up (ie pay for their education which I'll take a wild stab in the dark and guess you would be against) or relocate them which would just move the problem somewhere else, not actually solve it).
but in areas where a significant part of the population is incapable of housing and feeding themselves
These areas should get less of the kind of dollars you suggest. Handing out money to "sustain" the situation just sustains the situation. It doesn't fix it. It doesn't do anyone any favors either.
Stop creating welfare cities. I'm talking to you, Democrats. I know you do it because the politicians told you its a good idea, but they only told you that because the local large factory owners wants inexpensive workers and make large campaign donations to them, and to seal the deal on this over-supply of workers the politicians you are parroting also pass laws that discourage or even prevent other factories from being built in the area.
Do tell us about what the people that create welfare cities say about worker rights, while ignoring what they actually do to make workers less and less valuable.
And your solution is what? Stop creating welfare cities....fine: How? Do you have any actual ideas or are you just antisocial to the point where anything that doesn't benefit you directly must be bad?
Well speaking as someone who was born into a welfare family and effectively raised on state money and, because of that, was eventually able to break out of the cycle of life that most poor people get stuck in generation to generation I can vouch that this money is not only wasted but is absolutely necessary unless you want to live in a country that is rapidly becoming more and more like India, the NGO capital of the world, where ignorance and disease (and I'm not talking little stuff here but things like polio and leprosy) run rampant because of selfish fuckwits like yourself that can't see past your own bloody belly button.
Arguably privatizing saves costs by cutting the extreme benefits and making working weeks more normal vs. what public sector employees get so it's conceivable that private vs. public can actually provide the same level of service for less - at least for the short term.
Long-term I agree with you that over time profit considerations will cause problems like lack of investment in infrastructure, cost vs. safety problems, etc.
On your second paragraph I agree 100% having lived, from the sound of it, in more or less the same circumstances.
- add mandatory money management classes in school from the time kids can count, perhaps with small amounts of money that can be manipulated (tax free) in accounts that they're not allowed to touch until they're 18 so that they feel that this is 'real'
- add bank regulation such that institutions who lend to people beyond their means to pay should not be able to collect from those people with no 'credit score' type impact to the person. (In France, this is considered to be when all a person's debt payments aggregate to more than about 30% of their net income). If the bank lends too much it's the bank's problem. Amazing how responsible banks become with this type of structure!
Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.
Countries claim whatever they want to and so long as they're carrying a big enough stick then they'll keep that jurisdiction unless someone with an even bigger stick feels it's worth going to war over.
But a child (anyone under 18 now) coming in with even unwashed clothes, or hunger? That's an issue that gets referred to social services pretty damn quick. I'm not saying they can act immediately, but we have a range of neglect laws and getting taken into care can happen pretty damn quick if the parents obviously aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit.
That sort of support exists in America, too. In this situation, it's not really clear what was going on, why that wasn't happening already, the article doesn't go into enough detail.
Yes and no. The support exists but in areas where a significant part of the population is incapable of housing and feeding themselves, social services are just plain unable to keep up with what is required to get such on track to self improvement.
As far as parents that aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit - there are many who are working two or three jobs and doing the best they can aren't able to provide a healthy environment for their kids. Getting taken into care would not be a good thing for these kids as they have one or more parents or grandparents who love them. The better option is to support the parents and the families as a whole.
The problem is one of scale. Social services are overwhelmed in poor areas.
But a child (anyone under 18 now) coming in with even unwashed clothes, or hunger? That's an issue that gets referred to social services pretty damn quick. I'm not saying they can act immediately, but we have a range of neglect laws and getting taken into care can happen pretty damn quick if the parents obviously aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit.
The home for children that I grew up in was closed out of funding a few years ago having been blocked by the state for the home not having employed a full time on-site doctor and all the costs that go with it.
I spent eight years living in that home and with a full-time nurse and two hospitals about ten minutes away by car there was never a need for a full time doctor so I can only assume this was a thinly veiled trick to cut the state budget.
With a poverty level of 24.4% in 2013 (about the same as Jennings, MO), New Haven CT certainly has no fewer kids in need than it did in my time so I don't see the need for such homes decreasing - and if anything the opposite. http://www.city-data.com/pover...
With antisocial policies being espoused by those who feel that their hard earned money shouldn't be used for 'socialist' programs like getting the dirt poor out of the cycle that they are stuck in I am not surprised that the number of homeless children in the US is increasing. https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
So yes, you're right that this is not a problem for schools. The failure is in the people of the US who want to cut social services, and in those social services themselves who are incapable, for whatever reasons, of fixing what is an endemic problem in the US.
So hats off to the woman who has found a way to make it work in her part of this mess.
So...federal breakfast+lunch+dinner+afterschool+foodstamps+welfare = fail? Can we just invest in what she's doing then and cut back on all the other social programs that are not addressing poverty?
Most likely, no.
With programs like these, often it is a single person who cares that makes a huge difference. In the foster-child program, for example, the people who are hired by the government to handle cases are the difference between a horrible program and an excellent program.
You can try throwing money at the problem, but unless people care, it's not going to make a huge difference.
You can also turn that around and say that you can have people who care but if there's no money to support the program (ie. the free food, shelters for homeless kids (what country is this again!?!?!?!), etc that the program cannot succeed.
As the man said, Money can't buy you love but I can tell you from experience that Love can't feed a hungry child either.
She's on the dole for $200k/year and just feeds kids into affirmative action and welfare: "just 36 percent of the graduates in 2015 scored high enough on the ACT, SAT or similar tests to meet Missouri's definition of 'college and career ready.'"
1) She's employed, not on the dole. 2) There can be no doubt that her policies are effective, even if you don't like them. FTFS: "When Anderson took over in 2012, the school district was close to losing accreditation. Jennings had a score of 57 percent on state educational standards. A district loses accreditation if that score goes below 50 percent. Two years later, that score was up to 78 percent, and in the past year rose again to 81 percent, Anderson says. She points to a 92 percent 4-year graduation rate, and a 100 percent college and career placement rate." 3) Your negative perception of the 36 percent being ready to go on to college doesn't take int account previous rates or, for that matter, that getting a high school diploma is in and of itself an achievement in such areas, for such poor people.
This sends a clear message: Screw with the costs for Obamacare and we will find a way to take you down. If they looked hard enough, they'd be able to enough to bring in a good percentage of pharmaceutical CEO's. But this guy was singled out for a reason.
If Obamacare has to pay by law, every drug company should raise their prices 10x. It's free money. They would be stupid not to.
Consider fundamental economics. The price found is a function of supply and demand.
More demand, less supply, price goes up. More supply, less demand, price goes down.
All supply, one buyer...buyer's market = set's the price willing to pay.
This is why it works in one payer countries.
So long as you continue to believe that such 'socialist' ideas are bad (not really your fault as you've been indoctrinated to think this since you were in diapers), you will be stuck with a system that fucks you every which way.
Naval reactors are a very different business to a commercial power plant. They are usually quite a bit smaller, and usually a sealed vessel that is removed wholesale from the submarine rather than being 'refuelled' in place. I believe they also run a mixed-oxide fuel.
Yes I'm sure you're right that there are differences - but are they differences that can't be surmounted? Modular everything, removed to the surface as needed but based underground, underwater.
We can build tunnels under water and ground between countries, I'm sure we can figure this out if we want to -
Do NOT use such visits to justify warrants. They can be used to justify investigation, but a warrant is based on probable cause, and peacefully visiting distasteful websites isn't probable cause for anything illegal.
Well they could argue that to the judge.
My point is that visiting the website should not, in and of itself, be a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your point?
The majority of those US deaths are suicide. But even if you want to count them you are purposely ignoring the fact that gun deaths still occur even when there are laws making guns hard to get. But you are also ignoring the entire points made in order to spout something. Having a gun that would kill you if you needed to use it is a extremely stupid idea and can be the cause of your death either by attempted action or inaction. It would resign you to death with absolutely no chance of changing that unless someone with a gun shows up first
The point is that the number of people killed by terrorism is so ridiculously low compared to gun related deaths that to use self protection from terrorists as a justification for unregulated gun ownership is therefore beyond ridiculous.
"The most serious flaw is located in the mediaserver Android component"
No, the most serious flaw is the model where security updates are not available for more than 85% of the Android devices that exist.
http://gizmodo.com/study-85-of...
How could a federal database of people with mental health problems (instantly searchable during the background check) possibly be in compliance with HIPAA?
When you apply for a gun permit no doubt you are giving permission to the feds to be able to search your relevant medical records.
Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
Let's compare the number of Americans killed by gun deaths on US soil (406,496) vs. the number of Americans killed by terrorism globally for the same period 2001 to 2013 (3,380), and then consider if easy availability of guns for self defense is realistic or just a nice dream.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10...
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
RFID is more likely for identification of the device not for authentication of a user of that device
It's worth pointing out that the U.S. became the industrial powerhouse it is by ignoring European patent and copyright law during the late 1800s/early 1900s, and illegally building tools and products based on European designs.
I'm of the opinion that IP holders have gotten fat and lazy by manipulating the legal process to extend IP law and duration far, far beyond the point where it's helpful to the economy. And if China can build this stuff cheaper and better by flaunting IP law, then the world will be better for it even if it screws over the IP holders. That's not to say IP is useless. Just that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, and it needs to be swung back to return us to the point where IP law is benefiting society.
Do you imagine that because the Chinese (or whomever) ignore IP that IP law will somehow improve in the west? I don't follow the logic.
Or are you just saying that it's good that they can flaunt IP law so that you can have cheaper product?
p>Chinese IP law may not be the same as the US's - they're a different country, you know they are allowed their own laws, they don't have to have yours. If they can compete better by not having the US-style copyright nightmare - good for them - without Disney on their backs they can compete far better than you can
Imagine for a moment that you earned your living by being creative, that you worked months or years developing, designing, inventing something that was then mass copied, technology stolen, whatever without anything coming back to you as recompense - you then finding yourself competing against the same product or a product with technology copied from you but being sold at 1/300th of the price that you need to get for it just to be able to pay your living?
I suppose that's probably being your ability to imagine, as if you were an imaginative creative person you would perhaps have created something that you would want to be compensated fairly for - your post showing the opposite.
"...district in Ukraine suffered a power outage."
This wouldn't be Russia's 'deniable' response to Ukraine cutting electricity to Crimea...?
"...lets the newer technology penetrate walls and doors more easily."
Which is good if you live in a forest but won't this increase congestion problems in densely populated areas?
Your tactic of preemptively belittling valid arguments in your post is interesting.
"Don't believe me? Find a rational argument as to why a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country isn't a common-sense response to an immediate threat."
Because contrary to your assertion you can't actually know someone's religion if you don't have existing information on them other than by either making assumptions based on appearances, and as some of the worst offenders in IS are converts those assumptions aren't going to be accurate, or by counting on them to be honest when they fill in the landing form which seems unlikely to be useful.
As to your assertion that it must be okay to do because we've done it before...that's just stupid.
Oh my god a socialist! Run for the hills!
You're really quite funny. You say that using terms like 'bigot, predjudiced, racist, and extremist' are not rational (though interestingly you do not group them being used to describe Trump with the 'outright lies') and then you exclaim against socialism like it's the worst sexual disease one could contract.
To be replaced by "Does the light go out when you turn off the camera?"
Or perhaps more importantly, does the camera go off when you turn out the light?
With a poverty level of 24.4% in 2013 (about the same as Jennings, MO), New Haven CT certainly has no fewer kids in need than it did in my time so I don't see the need for such homes decreasing - and if anything the opposite.
New Haven, along with most of the large cities in Connecticut, is a welfare city. The evidence is right in front of you. For instance the largest percentage of Puerto Ricans in the country is in Connecticut (7.1% vs the national average of 1.5%) because of how liberal Connecticut's welfare system is (people are motivated by incentives.)
What Connecticut doesnt need is more welfare. What it needs is (a) more low skill jobs, or (b) less low skill people. Those are the two solutions. The Democrats that run the State manage to continually enact policies that accomplish the opposite of both solutions.
So you're racist in addition to being stupid.
I'm guessing that you were born wealthy enough not to have to rely on state funding so I can make some allowance for you not actually knowing what you're talking.
Connecticut's welfare system basically saved my life. From a family where we didn't have enough to eat, never mind to buy things like clothing or shoes to a good life. I've been making six figures for a long time now and my taxes go back into the system.
Because I was able to break out of that lock that many poor people are under my children will never know the poverty that I knew growing up, nor, I expect will theirs.
Without welfare, there is zero chance of the poor breaking out of being poor. Your suggestions as alternatives to welfare are both ridiculous. (a) low skill jobs do not pay enough to raise a family on and (b) you either have to skill people up (ie pay for their education which I'll take a wild stab in the dark and guess you would be against) or relocate them which would just move the problem somewhere else, not actually solve it).
but in areas where a significant part of the population is incapable of housing and feeding themselves
These areas should get less of the kind of dollars you suggest. Handing out money to "sustain" the situation just sustains the situation. It doesn't fix it. It doesn't do anyone any favors either.
Stop creating welfare cities. I'm talking to you, Democrats. I know you do it because the politicians told you its a good idea, but they only told you that because the local large factory owners wants inexpensive workers and make large campaign donations to them, and to seal the deal on this over-supply of workers the politicians you are parroting also pass laws that discourage or even prevent other factories from being built in the area.
Do tell us about what the people that create welfare cities say about worker rights, while ignoring what they actually do to make workers less and less valuable.
And your solution is what? Stop creating welfare cities....fine: How? Do you have any actual ideas or are you just antisocial to the point where anything that doesn't benefit you directly must be bad?
Well speaking as someone who was born into a welfare family and effectively raised on state money and, because of that, was eventually able to break out of the cycle of life that most poor people get stuck in generation to generation I can vouch that this money is not only wasted but is absolutely necessary unless you want to live in a country that is rapidly becoming more and more like India, the NGO capital of the world, where ignorance and disease (and I'm not talking little stuff here but things like polio and leprosy) run rampant because of selfish fuckwits like yourself that can't see past your own bloody belly button.
Arguably privatizing saves costs by cutting the extreme benefits and making working weeks more normal vs. what public sector employees get so it's conceivable that private vs. public can actually provide the same level of service for less - at least for the short term.
Long-term I agree with you that over time profit considerations will cause problems like lack of investment in infrastructure, cost vs. safety problems, etc.
On your second paragraph I agree 100% having lived, from the sound of it, in more or less the same circumstances.
- add mandatory money management classes in school from the time kids can count, perhaps with small amounts of money that can be manipulated (tax free) in accounts that they're not allowed to touch until they're 18 so that they feel that this is 'real'
- add bank regulation such that institutions who lend to people beyond their means to pay should not be able to collect from those people with no 'credit score' type impact to the person. (In France, this is considered to be when all a person's debt payments aggregate to more than about 30% of their net income). If the bank lends too much it's the bank's problem. Amazing how responsible banks become with this type of structure!
Ascention Island is a hunk of volcanic rock stuck in the middle of the atlantic. Does a country really get jurisdiction of 234,291 sq km (a zone roughly 500km across) out of that? I suspect someone is overstating the claim.
Countries claim whatever they want to and so long as they're carrying a big enough stick then they'll keep that jurisdiction unless someone with an even bigger stick feels it's worth going to war over.
Gibraltar and the Falklands come to mind.
But a child (anyone under 18 now) coming in with even unwashed clothes, or hunger? That's an issue that gets referred to social services pretty damn quick. I'm not saying they can act immediately, but we have a range of neglect laws and getting taken into care can happen pretty damn quick if the parents obviously aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit.
That sort of support exists in America, too. In this situation, it's not really clear what was going on, why that wasn't happening already, the article doesn't go into enough detail.
Yes and no. The support exists but in areas where a significant part of the population is incapable of housing and feeding themselves, social services are just plain unable to keep up with what is required to get such on track to self improvement.
As far as parents that aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit - there are many who are working two or three jobs and doing the best they can aren't able to provide a healthy environment for their kids. Getting taken into care would not be a good thing for these kids as they have one or more parents or grandparents who love them. The better option is to support the parents and the families as a whole.
The problem is one of scale. Social services are overwhelmed in poor areas.
But a child (anyone under 18 now) coming in with even unwashed clothes, or hunger? That's an issue that gets referred to social services pretty damn quick. I'm not saying they can act immediately, but we have a range of neglect laws and getting taken into care can happen pretty damn quick if the parents obviously aren't around, can't cope or don't give a shit.
The home for children that I grew up in was closed out of funding a few years ago having been blocked by the state for the home not having employed a full time on-site doctor and all the costs that go with it.
I spent eight years living in that home and with a full-time nurse and two hospitals about ten minutes away by car there was never a need for a full time doctor so I can only assume this was a thinly veiled trick to cut the state budget.
With a poverty level of 24.4% in 2013 (about the same as Jennings, MO), New Haven CT certainly has no fewer kids in need than it did in my time so I don't see the need for such homes decreasing - and if anything the opposite.
http://www.city-data.com/pover...
With antisocial policies being espoused by those who feel that their hard earned money shouldn't be used for 'socialist' programs like getting the dirt poor out of the cycle that they are stuck in I am not surprised that the number of homeless children in the US is increasing.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
So yes, you're right that this is not a problem for schools. The failure is in the people of the US who want to cut social services, and in those social services themselves who are incapable, for whatever reasons, of fixing what is an endemic problem in the US.
So hats off to the woman who has found a way to make it work in her part of this mess.
So...federal breakfast+lunch+dinner+afterschool+foodstamps+welfare = fail? Can we just invest in what she's doing then and cut back on all the other social programs that are not addressing poverty?
Most likely, no.
With programs like these, often it is a single person who cares that makes a huge difference. In the foster-child program, for example, the people who are hired by the government to handle cases are the difference between a horrible program and an excellent program.
You can try throwing money at the problem, but unless people care, it's not going to make a huge difference.
You can also turn that around and say that you can have people who care but if there's no money to support the program (ie. the free food, shelters for homeless kids (what country is this again!?!?!?!), etc that the program cannot succeed.
As the man said, Money can't buy you love but I can tell you from experience that Love can't feed a hungry child either.
She's on the dole for $200k/year and just feeds kids into affirmative action and welfare: "just 36 percent of the graduates in 2015 scored high enough on the ACT, SAT or similar tests to meet Missouri's definition of 'college and career ready.'"
1) She's employed, not on the dole.
2) There can be no doubt that her policies are effective, even if you don't like them. FTFS: "When Anderson took over in 2012, the school district was close to losing accreditation. Jennings had a score of 57 percent on state educational standards. A district loses accreditation if that score goes below 50 percent. Two years later, that score was up to 78 percent, and in the past year rose again to 81 percent, Anderson says. She points to a 92 percent 4-year graduation rate, and a 100 percent college and career placement rate."
3) Your negative perception of the 36 percent being ready to go on to college doesn't take int account previous rates or, for that matter, that getting a high school diploma is in and of itself an achievement in such areas, for such poor people.
This sends a clear message: Screw with the costs for Obamacare and we will find a way to take you down. If they looked hard enough, they'd be able to enough to bring in a good percentage of pharmaceutical CEO's. But this guy was singled out for a reason.
If Obamacare has to pay by law, every drug company should raise their prices 10x. It's free money. They would be stupid not to.
Consider fundamental economics. The price found is a function of supply and demand.
More demand, less supply, price goes up.
More supply, less demand, price goes down.
All supply, one buyer...buyer's market = set's the price willing to pay.
This is why it works in one payer countries.
So long as you continue to believe that such 'socialist' ideas are bad (not really your fault as you've been indoctrinated to think this since you were in diapers), you will be stuck with a system that fucks you every which way.
"Wake me up when patients can import drugs from abroad, without any hassle, to keep miscreants like Shkreli in check with competition."
As long as there are patents, this will not be possible.
You should consider a single payer system that keeps prices down by stating how much they will pay.
Naval reactors are a very different business to a commercial power plant. They are usually quite a bit smaller, and usually a sealed vessel that is removed wholesale from the submarine rather than being 'refuelled' in place. I believe they also run a mixed-oxide fuel.
Yes I'm sure you're right that there are differences - but are they differences that can't be surmounted? Modular everything, removed to the surface as needed but based underground, underwater.
We can build tunnels under water and ground between countries, I'm sure we can figure this out if we want to -
That didn't last long -
"Brazil judge lifts WhatsApp suspension"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Do NOT use such visits to justify warrants. They can be used to justify investigation, but a warrant is based on probable cause, and peacefully visiting distasteful websites isn't probable cause for anything illegal.
Well they could argue that to the judge.
My point is that visiting the website should not, in and of itself, be a crime.
Okay thanks for pointing that out to me