I would rather throw my vote away and make a minuscule statement about the status quo than vote for someone I don't trust or respect and be counted as someone who tolerates such behavior in our so-called leaders.
I don't want it to stop operating as a Government, I want it to stop acting like a know-it-all nanny to us all. You said 'your' government, which makes me assume you're not from the US. That said, the US was created as a collection of independent, autonomous States, NOT as a a country divided into worrisome little provinces called states.
The real power in this country _should_ be with the state governments, not the feds. The feds are constitutionally limited by the 10th Amendment in their powers, and all things not explicitly allowed them are reserved for the states or the people. These limits have been skirted for so long (witness the programs I proposed eliminating that provide what's called 'specific aid') that no one thinks anything about it. In a perfect world, the feds shouldn't even know my name unless I apply for a passport. The states should be handling all of the affairs of their citizens, and the feds should be administering programs that meet the needs of the states themselves (defense, border protection, coining money, etc).
Regardless of the stats, federally-subsidized insurance is not the way to go.
I'd love to see lifetime health insurance that is not tied to an employer. I get and keep my policy, my employer(s) kick in (if they choose - it's another fringe benefit they may or may not offer). When I retire, I take over the full premium, or have paid ahead enough during my career to 'coast' the rest of the way.
Excellent point - I'll have to think about that, but my gut feeling is that you're correct. Is the loss of the value of their production greater than the savings garnered by reducing the federal government's bloat?
I would rather have a single program such as this 'safety net' that was fair and across the board and take the hit on productivity than continue to fund an endless stream of hare-brained, feel-good programs that just waste money.
Exactly. Instead of swelling the ranks of the federal government with bureaucrats to administer these programs, just send out a check. I'm not sure if my original stats included the salaries of all the millions of administrators. That'd be even greater savings. Once that 15k is gone, though, there's no more. No welfare, no nothing. If you chose to buy illegal drugs instead of health insurance, goodbye.
Call it a 'safety net' - for me, the 15k wouldn't make a difference in the way I work, it'd go toward retirement. For those not so fortunate, it is a way to live that doesn't stigmatize them, since everyone gets the same deal.
I would rather let your neighbors make the conscious choice of working or turning to a life of crime and paying the consequences than use welfare as a crime prevention measure.
Easy, IMHO. One who deserves help is one who wants to become self-reliant and better their situation and is willing to accomplish it thru the fair exchange of their toil for money. Simply put, someone who is willing to work to support themselves is worth helping.
It would be cheaper to give every household $MINIMUM_WAGE * $WORK_HOURS_PER_YEAR dollars every single year tax free than administer all of the programs they have now.
From the 2008 budget:
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
These add up to nearly $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! The current Population Clock puts the US population at 304,249,871, and the 2000 Census figures report 105,480,101 households. Doing the math, that's $15,168 dollars per year per household. The 2007 poverty level statistics show that $15,168/yr would exceed the poverty level for many family situations WITHOUT ANYONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD HAVING TO WORK A SINGLE HOUR. It also happens to exceed working all 2080 work hours per week at minimum wage BY $3000/year! ($5.85 * 2080 = $12,168).
Your lucid description of how things are explains perfectly why, as a life-long Republican, I will not be voting McCain. I won't be voting Democrat, either. I am much more closely aligned with Ron Paul's message, and will either write him in or vote Constitutional Party if they're on my state's ballot.
BonrHanzon and/or kdawson must be on the pipe again.
This model is exactly like DiVX except for:
THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!
DiVX disks used crypto to limit plays, this uses a Mission Impossible self-destructing glue
DiVX disks could be played at any time later and traded around with coworkers (playing fee applied), this creates piles of literally useless disks
DiVX disks were not rippable, these (presumably) will be
The only thing they have in common is they're an attempt to cash in on convenience with 'disposable' movies, and that they claim eco-friendliness wrt recycling. Exactly the same, yep.
I imagine that some of that 'debris' could be ice from the external tank that routinely falls of at launch being blown into the ocean by the redirected thrust.
...his body will attract a new soul from the available pool...
Would that pool be the Judaic concept of the "Guff", as mentioned in the movie "The Seventh Sign", or a Wathan stored in the tower at the north pole in "Riverworld"?
The last time I ate 17.3 glazed "Hots", I was escorted from the building for planting myself at the end of the donut conveyor and opening my mouth extra-wide.
People insecure about their status would put in "h"s where they didn't belong...
That explains why the cockney accent is considered lower class.
"In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen." was used in "My Fair Lady" to re-introduce the hard H sound back into Eliza's speech.
select * from roles r1, roles r2, roles r3, roles r4, roles r5, roles r6 where r1.costar=r2.actor and r2.costar=r3.actor and r3.costar=r4.actor and r4.costar=r5.actor and r5.costar=r6.actor and r6.name='Kevin Bacon";
I disagree that you can "...inject stuff into the payload without actually altering your code." My contention is that the response from the content provider must not be altered from initial SYN to final FIN-ack/ACK.
I agree that theaters are not content providers - as a delivery agent they show stuff before the movie, but do not alter the movie itself. I get exactly what the content provider intended; no ads in the corner, no commercial breaks, etc during the movie. Books are the same deal - the book is not modified at all, but content is added 'around' it. That's not the same thing as altering the content.
In my mind it's really simple: There are at most 3 entities here; the content provider, the delivery service, and the consumer.
The content provider can insert as may ads as they like before they hand it off to the delivery service (limited by their agreements with any upstream content providers such as movie studios, etc).
The delivery service, IMHO, cannot modify the content in any way lest it be considered either a copyright violation or a violation of the agreement between the consumer and the delivery service. The consumer, once in possession of the content, may exercise their fair use rights as they (and only they) see fit.
As to your examples:
Bookstore = content provider, and there's no delivery service. They do not modify the original work, they bundle ads at the point of delivery to the consumer (more on this later). They do not attempt to sew new pages into the center of the book or try to make their ads look like it's part of the book.
On-demand movies: Once again it's the content provider that's doing it, so it's legit
Theaters: Content provider, once again.
Examples of delivery agents running amok:
The phone company whispering ads while you're talking on the phone.
The Post Office stuffing ads in your private mail.
The ISP modifying content in flight from a website.
More about bundling. The only way I see the ISPs can get away with this is by bundling the ad content after the point of delivery to the consumer. This means that they'd need to use a special browser that gets the ads from an independent source (not in the stream from the content provider), and show them together. Yes, that means the consumer must use a special browser if they want to be pelted with ads.
Everyone's happy: the content providers are not having their copyrights violated, the consumer is assured of getting pure content, and those that OPT IN can get hammered by the ISPs ads all they want.
Slashdot Mirror
What good is your retentiveness, Mr. Anderson, if you don't have an anus?
I would rather throw my vote away and make a minuscule statement about the status quo than vote for someone I don't trust or respect and be counted as someone who tolerates such behavior in our so-called leaders.
The real power in this country _should_ be with the state governments, not the feds. The feds are constitutionally limited by the 10th Amendment in their powers, and all things not explicitly allowed them are reserved for the states or the people. These limits have been skirted for so long (witness the programs I proposed eliminating that provide what's called 'specific aid') that no one thinks anything about it. In a perfect world, the feds shouldn't even know my name unless I apply for a passport. The states should be handling all of the affairs of their citizens, and the feds should be administering programs that meet the needs of the states themselves (defense, border protection, coining money, etc).
I'd love to see lifetime health insurance that is not tied to an employer. I get and keep my policy, my employer(s) kick in (if they choose - it's another fringe benefit they may or may not offer). When I retire, I take over the full premium, or have paid ahead enough during my career to 'coast' the rest of the way.
I would rather have a single program such as this 'safety net' that was fair and across the board and take the hit on productivity than continue to fund an endless stream of hare-brained, feel-good programs that just waste money.
Call it a 'safety net' - for me, the 15k wouldn't make a difference in the way I work, it'd go toward retirement. For those not so fortunate, it is a way to live that doesn't stigmatize them, since everyone gets the same deal.
I would rather let your neighbors make the conscious choice of working or turning to a life of crime and paying the consequences than use welfare as a crime prevention measure.
Of course you mean Status quo ? Close to a Tiller's Rule violation, but I'll let it slide... 8-)
Easy, IMHO. One who deserves help is one who wants to become self-reliant and better their situation and is willing to accomplish it thru the fair exchange of their toil for money.
Simply put, someone who is willing to work to support themselves is worth helping.
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
These add up to nearly $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! The current Population Clock puts the US population at 304,249,871, and the 2000 Census figures report 105,480,101 households. Doing the math, that's $15,168 dollars per year per household. The 2007 poverty level statistics show that $15,168/yr would exceed the poverty level for many family situations WITHOUT ANYONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD HAVING TO WORK A SINGLE HOUR. It also happens to exceed working all 2080 work hours per week at minimum wage BY $3000/year! ($5.85 * 2080 = $12,168).
Your lucid description of how things are explains perfectly why, as a life-long Republican, I will not be voting McCain. I won't be voting Democrat, either. I am much more closely aligned with Ron Paul's message, and will either write him in or vote Constitutional Party if they're on my state's ballot.
I guess they were shocked by seeing the Giant Goatse black hole at the center of the galaxy.
This model is exactly like DiVX except for:
- THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!
- DiVX disks used crypto to limit plays, this uses a Mission Impossible self-destructing glue
- DiVX disks could be played at any time later and traded around with coworkers (playing fee applied), this creates piles of literally useless disks
- DiVX disks were not rippable, these (presumably) will be
The only thing they have in common is they're an attempt to cash in on convenience with 'disposable' movies, and that they claim eco-friendliness wrt recycling. Exactly the same, yep.I imagine that some of that 'debris' could be ice from the external tank that routinely falls of at launch being blown into the ocean by the redirected thrust.
Chok-sa!
Quick! Attach one to a dog so he can finally make a fist!!!
Would that pool be the Judaic concept of the "Guff", as mentioned in the movie "The Seventh Sign", or a Wathan stored in the tower at the north pole in "Riverworld"?
"normal elevation. 75% of AF AFP test results in the range 2.0 to 4.9 MoM are false positives: the baby is normal."
Emphasis added.
The last time I ate 17.3 glazed "Hots", I was escorted from the building for planting myself at the end of the donut conveyor and opening my mouth extra-wide.
That explains why the cockney accent is considered lower class.
"In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen." was used in "My Fair Lady" to re-introduce the hard H sound back into Eliza's speech.
Maybe SQL needs a new construct just for the Kevin Bacon Problem:
Only if you're Ænglish.
select * from roles r1, roles r2, roles r3, roles r4, roles r5, roles r6 where r1.costar=r2.actor and r2.costar=r3.actor and r3.costar=r4.actor and r4.costar=r5.actor and r5.costar=r6.actor and r6.name='Kevin Bacon";
I agree that theaters are not content providers - as a delivery agent they show stuff before the movie, but do not alter the movie itself. I get exactly what the content provider intended; no ads in the corner, no commercial breaks, etc during the movie. Books are the same deal - the book is not modified at all, but content is added 'around' it. That's not the same thing as altering the content.
In my mind it's really simple: There are at most 3 entities here; the content provider, the delivery service, and the consumer.
The content provider can insert as may ads as they like before they hand it off to the delivery service (limited by their agreements with any upstream content providers such as movie studios, etc).
The delivery service, IMHO, cannot modify the content in any way lest it be considered either a copyright violation or a violation of the agreement between the consumer and the delivery service. The consumer, once in possession of the content, may exercise their fair use rights as they (and only they) see fit.
As to your examples:
Bookstore = content provider, and there's no delivery service. They do not modify the original work, they bundle ads at the point of delivery to the consumer (more on this later). They do not attempt to sew new pages into the center of the book or try to make their ads look like it's part of the book.
On-demand movies: Once again it's the content provider that's doing it, so it's legit
Theaters: Content provider, once again.
Examples of delivery agents running amok:
The phone company whispering ads while you're talking on the phone.
The Post Office stuffing ads in your private mail.
The ISP modifying content in flight from a website.
More about bundling. The only way I see the ISPs can get away with this is by bundling the ad content after the point of delivery to the consumer. This means that they'd need to use a special browser that gets the ads from an independent source (not in the stream from the content provider), and show them together. Yes, that means the consumer must use a special browser if they want to be pelted with ads.
Everyone's happy: the content providers are not having their copyrights violated, the consumer is assured of getting pure content, and those that OPT IN can get hammered by the ISPs ads all they want.