My VOIP service makes it trivially easy to blacklist numbers on it's web interface. They also make it trivially easy to change number. So if I were in his shoes, I'd add a second number and give that to friends, family etc. First number is sent straight to voicemail so I can screen the calls, with a whitelist to transfer the call to the new number where I can remind people to change their phone books
After a month or so delete the number the scammers are using.
If it's a number I don't recognize I let it go to voicemail. If it's important enough for them to call me, then it's important enough for them to leave a message.
It's always been about entrenched interests maintaining the status quo.
Interestingly, the entrenched interests in this case aren't gas/oil companies,
they already started diversifying years ago, it's the power utilities who are resistant to the change.
As I understand it, that's the nature of Conservativism - that you are there to conserve the status quo.
I was actually being more than a little sarcastic. Apologies. I too believe in capitalism, and own my own business, though I'm not American. I would never want to live in a place with such a retarded health"care" system - another socialist system that does work (hence Canadians pays half what America does with a very similar outcomes)
As for cleaning up the environment, the only solution I have come up with to make companies behave rationally is to fine them 3x the cost to clean up the mess. You make it cheaper to be clean, and you would have to do it on a federal level, or Texas would become a toxic dumping ground. Companies will still misbehave, so you use the fines to run the EPA.
Socialism is the keyword libertarians use when the government does something they don't like. Freedom is the keyword they use when the government does something they do like. It's irrelevant what that thing is, even if it's libraries which the Founding Fathers rather approved of.
This could work both ways. An opportunity to give honest and open feedback, and makes public offers to (for example) reimburse a customer if there's a problem. Unfortunately too many companies are about making a quick buck.
Our prisons are already full, so I think the appropriate penalty would be massive fines against the company, and all legal and executive personnel involved in this action, and if that can't be accurately determined, all legal and executive personnel.
I completely agree. Unfortunately they didn't do it to Wall Street, what makes you think they'll do it to other companies?
And as an added benefit, less pollution.
The problem is, who is going to do these low interest loans?
If you suggest a company do it, they don't (tend) to do low interest loans because they don't make any money
If you suggest the government (local or federal) do it, then that's SOCIALISM.
I've always wondered if there's an opportunity in Canada for exactly this, for this exact reason. And as an added bonus they can keep their cooling cheap during winter - just run a water cooling pipe out into the -40C snow.
All you need is decent VPN into the data center and it's all good.
You lie through omission - your original statement was that the lefties do it (the implication being that the righties don't), when in fact both sides of the fence do it *all* the time.
I don't believe that "other people are really stupid", but to vote on the same thing 47 times* when they know it won't pass the Senate or POTUS is kinda stupid. What they need to do is wait until they actually have a chance of passing those other two checks and balances. And Boehner is equally remiss at bringing other bills to the floor. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats for this kind of politics.
There is nothing wrong with holding people up to the ideals they say they hold - especially politicians. Another example being corporate welfare verus personal welfare. The Republicans say they don't believe people should be on welfare, that they should pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps whilst simultaneous handing billions of dollars to wealthy corporations. I'm sure the Democrats would probably also give billions of dollars to wealthy corporations too, but they aren't the ones who are saying you should defund the welfare system.
* I believe it was Einstein who said that: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
In this instance, they don't need to negotiate to get anything done. I repeat from my previous post:
1) Obama got elected on (among other things) the ACA
2) The ACA went through Congress
3) The ACA went through the Senate
4) The ACA was signed by the President
5) The ACA went through the Supreme Court
6) The Republicans - even though they hold a majority in the House - have failed to repeal the ACA 46 times.
And to suggest that the Republicans don't use the Alinsky protocols is ridiculous.
Righties are just as bad at throwing insults. You clearly don't listen to the right as much as you think you do, or at least with any level of critical thinking
No, I've never been to an ex-communist country. I know people who have, and yes it is devastating. I've never argued that a dictatorship is right. But from you've been saying, you want a single party - the Republican Party. That makes you a hypocrite. Unless you're suggesting that the Tea Party is a viable alternative.
However the fact that Democrats went through 5 pretty major hoops to get the ACA passed, and you still don't accept the result just means you don't believe in the process your own Founding Fathers created. As I mentioned before, if you don't like it, get a Constitutional Amendment passed. There are plenty of things that the Republicans have done that the Democrats would love to get repealed, but guess what. You have to pick you battles
Answer me this: Why should the Democrats negotiate over the ACA?
Which was my original point.
Health"care" for profit is morally reprehensible.
No - I don't mean boobjobs - they are like tattoos. For the most part a lifestyle choice. I'm talking about life and death.
Not true at all. I'm sure you read this on some left wing alleged "news" site, and believe it to be true, because you believe that the opposition party is pure evil of the worst sort, and follow the prime directive of the Democrat party - demonize your opponent.
Cos Fox News never demonizes anyone. Oh no!/sarcasm
The Obama Administration had a majority in both houses, so they were able to ram it though - although it only passed in the Senate by using a procedural trick where it was attached to a budget bill.
Again - this is nothing new for either party. Indeed, nothing new for north of your border either. Harper (and others) are just as bad.
Since then, the Democrats have engaged in a propaganda war where the Republicans only want to kill the whole thing because they want old people to die, grandma to starve, etc. etc. (yes, a few Republicans want to throw the whole thing out, but not all). The Democrats are following the Alinsky rule to the letter by refusing to negotiate with their opponent. Republicans made such horrible suggestions as "Treat individuals the same as corporations" or "Don't give waivers to your political friends" or "Delay this thing until you get it right" - oh the horror!! A mere month ago any delay of ObamaCare was the act of a terrorist, and what a surprise last week the Democrats just delayed part of it. Which means, of course, that the Democrats are terrorists to anyone who has any memory at all. I am sure you believe the party line version, not the truth, and I am wasting my breath.
Except, despite owning the House, and failing to get a bill passed what is it now - 46 or 48 times - they still haven't managed to get it repealed. They own the house, yet they still can't repeal it. Why? How is that even possible?
And why should the Democrats negotiate on this?
* They got a President elected on this topic
* They got it through Congress
* They got it through the Senate
* POTUS signed it
* The considerably conservative Supreme Court passed it in its entirety.
There *is* nothing to negotiate about this. It is the law at all levels of your government. Don't like it? Then get a Republican Congress, Republican Senate and Republican POTUS elected, repeal it (cos they've even failed to get Congress to repeal it 46 times or whatever it is - I've lost count now), then convince the Supreme Court to repeal it. That's how the law of the land works. Don't like it - get a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that one!
But don't let a few facts get in the way of your emotionally charged Alinsky fueled hate machine, where the opposition is pure evil, and the only way to survive at all is to completely eradicate them, leaving us with one party rule and a glorious Utopian paradise. Of course a thousand plus years of human history would tell you exactly what happens when this occurs, but you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.
Again, you suppose that the Republicans don't hate the Democrats as much as the Democrats hate the Republicans. As for "getting people eradicated", I'm assuming you're talking (in an emotionally charged way) about how the Republicans seem to be doing a very good job of talking themselves out of their elected seats. The Democrats don't need to negotiate with the Republicans because the more the Republicans talk, the more the American people realize they are dinosaurs waiting extinction. Just look at the farcical government shutdown.
Go talk to people in countries that were once under Communist rule, you'd learn a lot. Go talk to people that live under single payer - lots of them, not just cherry picked examples presented online. The money would be well spent.
I do live under a single payer system. In fact I've lived under two - Canada and the UK. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I would ra
You have seen the oh-my-god-how-much-do-we-owe trillions of dollars in national debt - right?
You're already bankrupt. America as it stands is a deadman walking.
Not only that - if the drug company tells you that'll be $7 per month to buy the pill that will save your life, you pay the $7 and go on living. If the same drug company tells you that the pill is $100 per week or you die, then guess what - you'd better find that extra $100 per week or you die.
Free market economics doesn't work with healthcare because you are not free to make those choices. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the free market.
I've noticed my iPhone switches to 3G when I'm at home, which it never used to do. If I'm in the same room as the AP then it rarely does it, but otherwise it's a bit hit and miss.
Thankfully I get a reasonable 3G signal where I live, and I have a pretty good data plan so I've not seen a huge impact. But I am looking forward to Apple fixing this.
Ahh yes, but in the case of a dispute with private insurance you have the courts to turn to for adjudication.
Yes, because when you can't afford better healthcare/can't afford to pay for it yourself and need your treatment in the next 4 months or you die - what you need to do is file for a lengthy court battle.
When the state runs healthcare what then?
When the state runs the healthcare, you turn up at your primary care provider, he/she refers you to a specialist, your specialist treats you - you get on with your life. There's no "Oh well, that particular condition isn't covered by your insurance".
What you drones and socialsists fail to understand is that the cost of healthcare is high because of statist intervention and manipulation of the free market.
So *that's* why Canada (with it's universal healthcare system) spends half what America does on it's healthcare system. And has a very similar outcome. I always wondered.
That someone is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (ironically NICE). They decide which drugs, treatments etc are going to be available on the NHS. If you don't like that selection, you can still pay to go private. But here's the catch - if you go private, ALL your treatment is private. If you have cancer, and you want that new spangly drug which is only available via the private system in the UK, then all your treatment has to be private.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't approve of my taxes being used to wage war on people we have no right waging war on. Guess what - don't have a say in that either.
Not true. My VOIP doesn't pay to receive calls. I don't pay to make long distance calls to US or Canada either.
My VOIP service makes it trivially easy to blacklist numbers on it's web interface. They also make it trivially easy to change number. So if I were in his shoes, I'd add a second number and give that to friends, family etc. First number is sent straight to voicemail so I can screen the calls, with a whitelist to transfer the call to the new number where I can remind people to change their phone books After a month or so delete the number the scammers are using.
If it's a number I don't recognize I let it go to voicemail. If it's important enough for them to call me, then it's important enough for them to leave a message.
It's always been about entrenched interests maintaining the status quo. Interestingly, the entrenched interests in this case aren't gas/oil companies, they already started diversifying years ago, it's the power utilities who are resistant to the change.
As I understand it, that's the nature of Conservativism - that you are there to conserve the status quo.
Not only that, they pay almost no tax. Some even get a rebate
I was actually being more than a little sarcastic. Apologies. I too believe in capitalism, and own my own business, though I'm not American. I would never want to live in a place with such a retarded health"care" system - another socialist system that does work (hence Canadians pays half what America does with a very similar outcomes)
As for cleaning up the environment, the only solution I have come up with to make companies behave rationally is to fine them 3x the cost to clean up the mess. You make it cheaper to be clean, and you would have to do it on a federal level, or Texas would become a toxic dumping ground. Companies will still misbehave, so you use the fines to run the EPA.
Socialism is the keyword libertarians use when the government does something they don't like. Freedom is the keyword they use when the government does something they do like. It's irrelevant what that thing is, even if it's libraries which the Founding Fathers rather approved of.
This could work both ways. An opportunity to give honest and open feedback, and makes public offers to (for example) reimburse a customer if there's a problem. Unfortunately too many companies are about making a quick buck.
Our prisons are already full, so I think the appropriate penalty would be massive fines against the company, and all legal and executive personnel involved in this action, and if that can't be accurately determined, all legal and executive personnel.
I completely agree. Unfortunately they didn't do it to Wall Street, what makes you think they'll do it to other companies?
And as an added benefit, less pollution. The problem is, who is going to do these low interest loans? If you suggest a company do it, they don't (tend) to do low interest loans because they don't make any money If you suggest the government (local or federal) do it, then that's SOCIALISM.
I've always wondered if there's an opportunity in Canada for exactly this, for this exact reason. And as an added bonus they can keep their cooling cheap during winter - just run a water cooling pipe out into the -40C snow. All you need is decent VPN into the data center and it's all good.
I'd rather my current iPhone to be cured thanks!
You lie through omission - your original statement was that the lefties do it (the implication being that the righties don't), when in fact both sides of the fence do it *all* the time. I don't believe that "other people are really stupid", but to vote on the same thing 47 times* when they know it won't pass the Senate or POTUS is kinda stupid. What they need to do is wait until they actually have a chance of passing those other two checks and balances. And Boehner is equally remiss at bringing other bills to the floor. The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats for this kind of politics. There is nothing wrong with holding people up to the ideals they say they hold - especially politicians. Another example being corporate welfare verus personal welfare. The Republicans say they don't believe people should be on welfare, that they should pull themselves up by their proverbial bootstraps whilst simultaneous handing billions of dollars to wealthy corporations. I'm sure the Democrats would probably also give billions of dollars to wealthy corporations too, but they aren't the ones who are saying you should defund the welfare system. * I believe it was Einstein who said that: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
In this instance, they don't need to negotiate to get anything done. I repeat from my previous post: 1) Obama got elected on (among other things) the ACA 2) The ACA went through Congress 3) The ACA went through the Senate 4) The ACA was signed by the President 5) The ACA went through the Supreme Court 6) The Republicans - even though they hold a majority in the House - have failed to repeal the ACA 46 times. And to suggest that the Republicans don't use the Alinsky protocols is ridiculous.
I still want to know why the Democrats should negotiate. Still not answered that one
Righties are just as bad at throwing insults. You clearly don't listen to the right as much as you think you do, or at least with any level of critical thinking
No, I've never been to an ex-communist country. I know people who have, and yes it is devastating. I've never argued that a dictatorship is right. But from you've been saying, you want a single party - the Republican Party. That makes you a hypocrite. Unless you're suggesting that the Tea Party is a viable alternative.
However the fact that Democrats went through 5 pretty major hoops to get the ACA passed, and you still don't accept the result just means you don't believe in the process your own Founding Fathers created. As I mentioned before, if you don't like it, get a Constitutional Amendment passed. There are plenty of things that the Republicans have done that the Democrats would love to get repealed, but guess what. You have to pick you battles
Answer me this: Why should the Democrats negotiate over the ACA?
Which was my original point. Health"care" for profit is morally reprehensible. No - I don't mean boobjobs - they are like tattoos. For the most part a lifestyle choice. I'm talking about life and death.
Not true at all. I'm sure you read this on some left wing alleged "news" site, and believe it to be true, because you believe that the opposition party is pure evil of the worst sort, and follow the prime directive of the Democrat party - demonize your opponent.
Cos Fox News never demonizes anyone. Oh no! /sarcasm
The Obama Administration had a majority in both houses, so they were able to ram it though - although it only passed in the Senate by using a procedural trick where it was attached to a budget bill.
Again - this is nothing new for either party. Indeed, nothing new for north of your border either. Harper (and others) are just as bad.
Since then, the Democrats have engaged in a propaganda war where the Republicans only want to kill the whole thing because they want old people to die, grandma to starve, etc. etc. (yes, a few Republicans want to throw the whole thing out, but not all). The Democrats are following the Alinsky rule to the letter by refusing to negotiate with their opponent. Republicans made such horrible suggestions as "Treat individuals the same as corporations" or "Don't give waivers to your political friends" or "Delay this thing until you get it right" - oh the horror!! A mere month ago any delay of ObamaCare was the act of a terrorist, and what a surprise last week the Democrats just delayed part of it. Which means, of course, that the Democrats are terrorists to anyone who has any memory at all. I am sure you believe the party line version, not the truth, and I am wasting my breath.
Except, despite owning the House, and failing to get a bill passed what is it now - 46 or 48 times - they still haven't managed to get it repealed. They own the house, yet they still can't repeal it. Why? How is that even possible?
And why should the Democrats negotiate on this?
There *is* nothing to negotiate about this. It is the law at all levels of your government. Don't like it? Then get a Republican Congress, Republican Senate and Republican POTUS elected, repeal it (cos they've even failed to get Congress to repeal it 46 times or whatever it is - I've lost count now), then convince the Supreme Court to repeal it. That's how the law of the land works. Don't like it - get a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that one!
But don't let a few facts get in the way of your emotionally charged Alinsky fueled hate machine, where the opposition is pure evil, and the only way to survive at all is to completely eradicate them, leaving us with one party rule and a glorious Utopian paradise. Of course a thousand plus years of human history would tell you exactly what happens when this occurs, but you probably wouldn't believe it anyway.
Again, you suppose that the Republicans don't hate the Democrats as much as the Democrats hate the Republicans. As for "getting people eradicated", I'm assuming you're talking (in an emotionally charged way) about how the Republicans seem to be doing a very good job of talking themselves out of their elected seats. The Democrats don't need to negotiate with the Republicans because the more the Republicans talk, the more the American people realize they are dinosaurs waiting extinction. Just look at the farcical government shutdown.
Go talk to people in countries that were once under Communist rule, you'd learn a lot. Go talk to people that live under single payer - lots of them, not just cherry picked examples presented online. The money would be well spent.
I do live under a single payer system. In fact I've lived under two - Canada and the UK. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I would ra
You have seen the oh-my-god-how-much-do-we-owe trillions of dollars in national debt - right? You're already bankrupt. America as it stands is a deadman walking.
Not only that - if the drug company tells you that'll be $7 per month to buy the pill that will save your life, you pay the $7 and go on living. If the same drug company tells you that the pill is $100 per week or you die, then guess what - you'd better find that extra $100 per week or you die.
Free market economics doesn't work with healthcare because you are not free to make those choices. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the free market.
I've noticed my iPhone switches to 3G when I'm at home, which it never used to do. If I'm in the same room as the AP then it rarely does it, but otherwise it's a bit hit and miss. Thankfully I get a reasonable 3G signal where I live, and I have a pretty good data plan so I've not seen a huge impact. But I am looking forward to Apple fixing this.
Ahh yes, but in the case of a dispute with private insurance you have the courts to turn to for adjudication.
Yes, because when you can't afford better healthcare/can't afford to pay for it yourself and need your treatment in the next 4 months or you die - what you need to do is file for a lengthy court battle.
When the state runs healthcare what then?
When the state runs the healthcare, you turn up at your primary care provider, he/she refers you to a specialist, your specialist treats you - you get on with your life. There's no "Oh well, that particular condition isn't covered by your insurance".
What you drones and socialsists fail to understand is that the cost of healthcare is high because of statist intervention and manipulation of the free market.
So *that's* why Canada (with it's universal healthcare system) spends half what America does on it's healthcare system. And has a very similar outcome. I always wondered.
You can find non-patented seeds. Look in your local farmers market for "heritage" seeds.
That someone is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (ironically NICE). They decide which drugs, treatments etc are going to be available on the NHS. If you don't like that selection, you can still pay to go private. But here's the catch - if you go private, ALL your treatment is private. If you have cancer, and you want that new spangly drug which is only available via the private system in the UK, then all your treatment has to be private.
That's already happened in Canada for that reason. Not sure about the UK though