In that care you're an idiot. WoW still brings in tons of revenue and profit. SC2 has sold incredibly well, and is moving into the same pro graming circuits as the original. Diablo 3 missed for a lot of folks, but was still, by any measure, a resounding financial success. Hearthstone already brings in money through it's store, though they've been cagey about how much, and it's just in closed beta.
People just refuse to accept that the website problems, both the Feds and Oregon's, are not faults with teh ACA, but faults with governemnt contracting, both state and federal.
these are not failures of the law as pertains to the ACA, though they are failures of contracting law (regulations), but that is wholly seperate from the ACA, and a known problem going back over a hundred years. these are failures of the individuals responsible for assigning and awarding contracts.
which brings up the main problem with the ACA: that is is simply furthering the insurance concept. yes, its better to pay only 183k instead of 450k. yes its better to have insurance than nothing.
The ACA is not some communistic redistribution welfare like the original idiot stated, its actually very capitalistic, pro free market, and follows conservative ideals. the only truly liberal thing about it is the Mediaid Expansion (which is optional). the exchanges are purely free market, and a component of EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE PROPAL.
and that is the problem: its simply a continuance of the status quo, that brings that status quo to more people. The true ultimate problem of the ACA is not that it is another entitlment program. The true ultimate problem of the ACA is that it is NOT another entitlment program.
its better than nothing, BUT we would be even better off as a nation WITH a national health care system.
We've already seen the success of single payer systems, both worldwide, and in our own nation: Medicare and Medicaid together make up the single most efficient and cost effective segment of our health care system.
We spend nearly 50% more as a nation on health care than any other nation, but our outcomes do not match our expenditures. in fact, we below average in nearly metric, other than number of MRI machines per capita. we DO NOT get what we pay for.
but if you split our system into its segments, public and private, the nubmers tell a different story. Our public segment more closely matches the cost/benefit ratios of other nations, and overspends by a much smaller amount. The private segment however jumps to a whopping 200% (or more) spent compared to other nations for the same or worse outcomes.
Not a single nation with a national health care system would trade its system for the American one. No one in these nations EVER goes bankrupt due to a medical bill. But medical bills are the number one cause of bankrupty in the US.
Single payer works. And people need to get over it.
and you make the same tired argument that youre better off with no insurance. the myth of the young invincible is jsut that, a myth.
you may be fine...until you actually need it. and thats a huge gamble to take with your life and your financial well being. medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation.
"A 2011 study from the Commonwealth Fund found that more than half of uninsured young adults reported having a medical problem but not seeking treatment. Among insured young adults, that number was 19 percent. ( http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Surveys/2012/Jun/Health-Insurance-Tracking-Survey-of-Young-Adults.aspx ) That same survey found that 51 percent of uninsured young adults had difficulty paying medical bills, with 26 percent having been contacted by a collection agency."
"One Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 17 percent of women ages 18 to 29, and 13 percent of men, have a chronic condition such as cancer or diabetes. Federal data show that young adults have higher rates of car accidents, which could lead to pricey medical bills."
its neither a huge scam, nor are you the intended target of these plans. the ACA was not intended to bring healthcare to the entire nation. it was intended to fill the gaps, to cover the uninsured and uninsurable, not to bring insurance to those who already have it. its not some communistic redistribution scam... (though the very idea and concept of Insurance itself IS A REDISTRIBUTION CONTRACT....becauses thats teh concept of how insurance works!!!)
You dont pay more than your fair share for anyone. it is not welfare. AND ITS NOT FOR YOU, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.
You're just another typical right wing nut, completely misinformed about the ACA, its purpose, what it does, and who it affects. in short, you're an idiot, and so is whoever modded you insightful
At least people are honest about their lack of honesty and integrity. Doing the right thing isnt always easy. and you can go read the post I already made with all the links to "schedule a pickup".
OK. So get the shipping labels from the company, prepaid, and ship it from work with the regular pick up. UPS, DHL, USPS, etc, they dont care. As long as its got the label and rady to go, it goes on the truck.
Again: you making a big deal out of nothing, all to be a douche. That's not insightful, that's just asshattery.
News flash: you can schedule a pickup, right to your own front door. UPS does it. FedEx does it. DHL does it. Even the US Postal does it.
Or you can go to their websites (all of them) and print out the label, and then just drop it in a box. Easy peasy.
Now you can be a douche, and demand payment for the ink, paper, and the drive to a drop box on the way to work, barely out of yoru way...and you sound like that kind of douche, but then theres no pleasing douches.
Point is, its not nearly the hardship you make it out to be. And you get to be a nice, honest person, instead of a douche.
Or consider the swag at conventions, or samples at the grocery store.
I will say this: from the companies perspective, threatening legal action seems illadvised. It will turn people off and against you, no matter how good your intentions, or justified your case.
Were it my company, I would contact all the recipients, and ask, and explain that, "I know this is a mistake, but it threatens the livelihood of my company, which up to now has been in good standing and popular, and so would you please, in the interest of keeping me around because we value value or supplier/client relationship, coupld you please return it?" Or something like that.
And mypast experience has shown that, if you have a good relationship with your customers, and this sort of thing happens, most folks are honest and will help you out. Cause who wants to see the comapny they've worked with for years go under due to a shipping error or the like?
Yes it is....if its a blanket ban. Once again, both of you are both right and wrong, but you are both speaking in generalities, in blanket statements. As usual, the devil is in the details.
This. Except I stopped reading when I realized the stories sucked and were just an excuse to link together tons of technobabble jargon, however tenuously.
Science fiction, as I learned it and came to appreciate it, was about evoking a sense of wonder, making the improbable probable, and examining the ramnifications of various lines of thought and technology as they evolve, when they converge, and even come into conflict (such as the digital age, and copyright; though I forget the name of the short story now, it basically predicted the current situation). Basically, the science isnt the end, it is the means to an end, and end involving thought and reflection on values/beliefs, etc, much like many other forms of literature. The key difference was always that while most literature focused that reflection on the past or present, science fiction focused on the future or possible what ifs, and came to its self-analysis through that lens.
But again, the science (or magic, or whatever literary devies are used) wasn't the end in itself, it was the means to an end.
And Stross is basically the complete antithesis to that concept. In his writing, the science, the technobabble, etc, IS the end. It is the reason for existence. The story is merely the vehicle with which to spew more made up jargon. His books are essentially about a step and half removed from being a dictionary, and with less entertainment value (imho).
Terrorism is the forceful demand of very reasonable requests that have been iterated thousands of times over the past fifty years to a deaf audience of american plutocrats.
Going to stop you right there, and say bullsh**, you're full of cr**, you dont know what you are talking about. Terrorism is is not merely the "forceful demand" of something, akin to civic disobedience, or activism, a step or two removed.
Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political, religious, or idealogical aims. Knocking down the WTC was not just the forceful demand of reasonable goals. The moment they killed one single person they lost any and all claim to legitmacy, regardless of their stated goals. No matter how noble or pure their stated goals (and they arent so noble as you claim), they killed innocent people. They fundamentally committed illegal acts, outside the realm of civilized behaviour, of civilized discourse.
These were not the acts of people fighting for freedom, for reformation. These were acts of war, namely murder of innocent American citizens, by religious zealots. To conflate the acts of 9/11 with "reasonable demands" is pur and utter bullshit.
Sorry, no. Your analysis is faulty. And you don't know history.
The only thing Global Hawk brings to the table is loiter time. Its slow, decidely unstealthy. It can fill gaps in the sat coverage, much like the U2 (also still in service). But it's rather easy to intercept, east to detect, easy to see coming.
The SR71 wasnt canceled because it wasnt needed. it was canceled because it was expensive as shit to operate. What the SR brought to the table was speed, the ability to be anywhere in the world within 2 hours, unreachable, uninterceptable. that is a unique capability that (officially) has not yet been replaced.
not to mention it means giving up on whateer the sat was watching previously, and it can only be done a few times. regardless of hollywood movies, retasking a sat is neither easy, nor commonly done.
that article, just like this one, originated in Aviation Week. Aviation Week is the Fox News of the aviation industry. (in the sense of, say anything crazy to get eyeballs/ratings)
Slashdot Mirror
In that care you're an idiot.
WoW still brings in tons of revenue and profit.
SC2 has sold incredibly well, and is moving into the same pro graming circuits as the original.
Diablo 3 missed for a lot of folks, but was still, by any measure, a resounding financial success.
Hearthstone already brings in money through it's store, though they've been cagey about how much, and it's just in closed beta.
People just refuse to accept that the website problems, both the Feds and Oregon's, are not faults with teh ACA, but faults with governemnt contracting, both state and federal.
these are not failures of the law as pertains to the ACA, though they are failures of contracting law (regulations), but that is wholly seperate from the ACA, and a known problem going back over a hundred years. these are failures of the individuals responsible for assigning and awarding contracts.
It looks like you need to read: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7
A little enlightenment as just what exactly government has achieved.
A little dose of reality for your bias filter.
which brings up the main problem with the ACA: that is is simply furthering the insurance concept.
yes, its better to pay only 183k instead of 450k.
yes its better to have insurance than nothing.
The ACA is not some communistic redistribution welfare like the original idiot stated, its actually very capitalistic, pro free market, and follows conservative ideals. the only truly liberal thing about it is the Mediaid Expansion (which is optional). the exchanges are purely free market, and a component of EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE PROPAL.
and that is the problem: its simply a continuance of the status quo, that brings that status quo to more people.
The true ultimate problem of the ACA is not that it is another entitlment program.
The true ultimate problem of the ACA is that it is NOT another entitlment program.
its better than nothing, BUT we would be even better off as a nation WITH a national health care system.
We've already seen the success of single payer systems, both worldwide, and in our own nation: Medicare and Medicaid together make up the single most efficient and cost effective segment of our health care system.
We spend nearly 50% more as a nation on health care than any other nation, but our outcomes do not match our expenditures.
in fact, we below average in nearly metric, other than number of MRI machines per capita. we DO NOT get what we pay for.
but if you split our system into its segments, public and private, the nubmers tell a different story. Our public segment more closely matches the cost/benefit ratios of other nations, and overspends by a much smaller amount. The private segment however jumps to a whopping 200% (or more) spent compared to other nations for the same or worse outcomes.
Not a single nation with a national health care system would trade its system for the American one.
No one in these nations EVER goes bankrupt due to a medical bill. But medical bills are the number one cause of bankrupty in the US.
Single payer works.
And people need to get over it.
and you make the same tired argument that youre better off with no insurance.
the myth of the young invincible is jsut that, a myth.
you may be fine...until you actually need it. and thats a huge gamble to take with your life and your financial well being.
medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation.
"A 2011 study from the Commonwealth Fund found that more than half of uninsured young adults reported having a medical problem but not seeking treatment. Among insured young adults, that number was 19 percent. ( http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Surveys/2012/Jun/Health-Insurance-Tracking-Survey-of-Young-Adults.aspx ) That same survey found that 51 percent of uninsured young adults had difficulty paying medical bills, with 26 percent having been contacted by a collection agency."
"One Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 17 percent of women ages 18 to 29, and 13 percent of men, have a chronic condition such as cancer or diabetes. Federal data show that young adults have higher rates of car accidents, which could lead to pricey medical bills."
Or this story: http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/why_nobody_without_insurance_should_skip_obamacare/
its neither a huge scam, nor are you the intended target of these plans.
the ACA was not intended to bring healthcare to the entire nation.
it was intended to fill the gaps, to cover the uninsured and uninsurable, not to bring insurance to those who already have it.
its not some communistic redistribution scam...
(though the very idea and concept of Insurance itself IS A REDISTRIBUTION CONTRACT....becauses thats teh concept of how insurance works!!!)
You dont pay more than your fair share for anyone. it is not welfare.
AND ITS NOT FOR YOU, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.
You're just another typical right wing nut, completely misinformed about the ACA, its purpose, what it does, and who it affects.
in short, you're an idiot, and so is whoever modded you insightful
At least people are honest about their lack of honesty and integrity.
Doing the right thing isnt always easy.
and you can go read the post I already made with all the links to "schedule a pickup".
Oh stop whining.
https://wwwapps.ups.com/pickup/schedule
http://sbw.dhl-usa.com/SchedulePickup/SchedulePickupInfo.asp
http://www.fedex.com/us/fcl/pckgenvlp/pickup/
OK. So get the shipping labels from the company, prepaid, and ship it from work with the regular pick up.
UPS, DHL, USPS, etc, they dont care. As long as its got the label and rady to go, it goes on the truck.
Again: you making a big deal out of nothing, all to be a douche.
That's not insightful, that's just asshattery.
News flash: you can schedule a pickup, right to your own front door.
UPS does it.
FedEx does it.
DHL does it.
Even the US Postal does it.
Or you can go to their websites (all of them) and print out the label, and then just drop it in a box. Easy peasy.
Now you can be a douche, and demand payment for the ink, paper, and the drive to a drop box on the way to work, barely out of yoru way...and you sound like that kind of douche, but then theres no pleasing douches.
Point is, its not nearly the hardship you make it out to be.
And you get to be a nice, honest person, instead of a douche.
You're using post office regulations, which aren't law, for something that likely wasnt sent via US Mail.
Or consider the swag at conventions, or samples at the grocery store.
I will say this: from the companies perspective, threatening legal action seems illadvised. It will turn people off and against you, no matter how good your intentions, or justified your case.
Were it my company, I would contact all the recipients, and ask, and explain that, "I know this is a mistake, but it threatens the livelihood of my company, which up to now has been in good standing and popular, and so would you please, in the interest of keeping me around because we value value or supplier/client relationship, coupld you please return it?" Or something like that.
And mypast experience has shown that, if you have a good relationship with your customers, and this sort of thing happens, most folks are honest and will help you out. Cause who wants to see the comapny they've worked with for years go under due to a shipping error or the like?
Yes it is....if its a blanket ban.
Once again, both of you are both right and wrong, but you are both speaking in generalities, in blanket statements.
As usual, the devil is in the details.
Makes sense.
Privacy is fundamentally at odds with the notion of transparency.
But thats true of a lot of human ideals (being in conflict that is).
This. Except I stopped reading when I realized the stories sucked and were just an excuse to link together tons of technobabble jargon, however tenuously.
Science fiction, as I learned it and came to appreciate it, was about evoking a sense of wonder, making the improbable probable, and examining the ramnifications of various lines of thought and technology as they evolve, when they converge, and even come into conflict (such as the digital age, and copyright; though I forget the name of the short story now, it basically predicted the current situation). Basically, the science isnt the end, it is the means to an end, and end involving thought and reflection on values/beliefs, etc, much like many other forms of literature. The key difference was always that while most literature focused that reflection on the past or present, science fiction focused on the future or possible what ifs, and came to its self-analysis through that lens.
But again, the science (or magic, or whatever literary devies are used) wasn't the end in itself, it was the means to an end.
And Stross is basically the complete antithesis to that concept.
In his writing, the science, the technobabble, etc, IS the end. It is the reason for existence.
The story is merely the vehicle with which to spew more made up jargon.
His books are essentially about a step and half removed from being a dictionary, and with less entertainment value (imho).
Terrorism is the forceful demand of very reasonable requests that have been iterated thousands of times over the past fifty years to a deaf audience of american plutocrats.
Going to stop you right there, and say bullsh**, you're full of cr**, you dont know what you are talking about.
Terrorism is is not merely the "forceful demand" of something, akin to civic disobedience, or activism, a step or two removed.
Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political, religious, or idealogical aims.
Knocking down the WTC was not just the forceful demand of reasonable goals.
The moment they killed one single person they lost any and all claim to legitmacy, regardless of their stated goals.
No matter how noble or pure their stated goals (and they arent so noble as you claim), they killed innocent people.
They fundamentally committed illegal acts, outside the realm of civilized behaviour, of civilized discourse.
These were not the acts of people fighting for freedom, for reformation.
These were acts of war, namely murder of innocent American citizens, by religious zealots.
To conflate the acts of 9/11 with "reasonable demands" is pur and utter bullshit.
The lesson is dont go through customs with electronics.
If you must, use disposable electronics you dont care about losing.
Sorry, no. Your analysis is faulty. And you don't know history.
The only thing Global Hawk brings to the table is loiter time. Its slow, decidely unstealthy. It can fill gaps in the sat coverage, much like the U2 (also still in service). But it's rather easy to intercept, east to detect, easy to see coming.
The SR71 wasnt canceled because it wasnt needed. it was canceled because it was expensive as shit to operate.
What the SR brought to the table was speed, the ability to be anywhere in the world within 2 hours, unreachable, uninterceptable. that is a unique capability that (officially) has not yet been replaced.
not to mention it means giving up on whateer the sat was watching previously, and it can only be done a few times.
regardless of hollywood movies, retasking a sat is neither easy, nor commonly done.
that article, just like this one, originated in Aviation Week.
Aviation Week is the Fox News of the aviation industry.
(in the sense of, say anything crazy to get eyeballs/ratings)
ya....im not talking about CC laws.
im talking about the owner getting shot by the cop.
Not insightful.
Nor factual.
Possibly sarcastic...but I doubt it.
We're talking about GA. If the owner had been carrying a gunw hen investing the person in his car at night, this could have been very different.
Wrong word.
Money.
Show them how they are losing money, or could make more money, and all things become possible.
stupidity and untruthfulness dressed as popular myth.
it's more complicated, and infinitely more fascinating than the simplistic lies you posit.
you're conflating capitalism with free market.
if spectrum of freeness of the market is the Xaxis on a graph, then capitalism (or, spectrum of ownership of capital) is the Y or Z axis.
the two are not synonyms.
they are not interchangeable.