"The person transported pays for the ambulance ride (it's part of the hospital bill) and the hospital will gladly take in another payment. More injuries == more money for the medical system."
What fantasy world do you live in where everybody who might be injured in a traffic accident always had the money to pay for ambulance rides and hospital stays? Have you taken a look around your local emergency room at any time in the past decade or three?
Even if car ownership in any way suggested that one was always able to pay for such services, there's still the simple matter of pedestrians.
"In that case, what they ought to do is not ban the substances, but merely make you ineligible for public health care if you use them."
And, in the interest of fairness, the people such as yourself who support trying to keep track of who uses and who doesn't rather than outright banning the substance should be the only ones who bear the cost of the new layer of bueraucracy needed to keep track of who uses what.
As I said in another post, the bans were passed because it was the option that involved no new taxes.
Re:the Declaration of Independence and the Constit
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
"Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance."
I knew somebody who failed civics would bring this up. In case you've forgotten, you're talking about a federal constitution, while I specifically and deliberately focused on the states. While I agree that the role of the federal government getting involved in an individual's healthcare is, at best, debatable, there is nothing in the federal constitution denying the states any involvement. Go reread the Ninth Amendment.
"However just because they do it doesn't mean they should bar smoking, every or alomost every state has a tax of tobacco and if this tax isn't there to pay for higher healthcare costs for smokers then it's not my fault."
Note that you felt compelled to use the word "should." Whether a state should enact such laws is a political question, but whether they can is hardly debatable, well... I believe I've already made my stance clear.
"Also when people get health insurance they pay more for the coverage. Fact is is that smokers do pay more for health insurance."
You are paying more for health insurance while you have it, while smoking and trans-fat consumption cause lifelong problems. Unless you are able to guarantee that you will always be insured and never fall under the aegis of state programs designed to attend to those who are otherwise unable to afford such insurance, it is (to say the least) in your own self interest to continue paying into such state programs; an insurance policy for your health insurance.
"I didn't approve of any bonds. I vote for liberty and small government, which most of the tyme would mean a balanced budget."
Then I hope, for the sake of your own principles, you do not use any of the resources those bonds paid for, demonstrating through your own actions that the money was truly not needed.
"If all of the federal agencies et alia that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA were abolished then taxes wouldn't need to be as high as they are."
Aside from the fact that you seem to be conflating the state and federal governments, taxes are not high! The tax footprint we live under is ridiculously low for the industrialized world, and the unseemly amounts of debt we've amassed isn't a coincidence. And it is the fiscally irresponsible voters such as yourself that maintain the status quo, refusing to fund even the state-provided resources that you yourself use. We don't enact any new taxes, our debt skyrockets, our infrastructure falls apart, and our standard of living continues to decline, and there is no reason to believe that things will not continue to decline to the Third World level at which we tax ourselves.
Of course, if you really insist on focusing on federal taxes, if the Union dissolved tomorrow, it is the states like New York and Washington, thanks to these ultimately fiscally responsible laws, that would be able to make the adjustment with the least amount of change. What was once collected for federal coffers would be diverted to newfound responsibilities for defense and diplomacy, while the rest of the states, who need federal money because their own voters are too stupid and irresponsible to pay for things themselves (indeed, populated by people such as yourself who deny their necessity), are the ones most likely to descend into civil war an anarchy.
"There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this."
No, that's a tax, not a user fee. In order for fuel tax to be a user fee, there'd need to be state agents posted at all border crossings, whose task it would be to measure the amount of fuel you have in your vehicle both leaving and returning to the state, to ensure that you do not drive on state roads with fuel you bought in another state (which would certainly be cheaper, since they're not the ones that need to employ such fuel monitors). Us
Property? I don't know where you live, but here in the United States, rights come from birth. What feudalistic society do you live in and why haven't you gotten around to freeing the serfs?
"Get rid of the state sponsored crap, let people choose their own insurance providers, let people deal with the consequences of their choices, and let people live their own lives."
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life(.)
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.
Insofar that medical treatment extends one's life, American republicanism expressly states that it is a valid aim (indeed, a raison d'etre) of the state to ensure that all citizens can obtain it. This is from a document ratified by delegates of the duly elected legislature of the state in which you wish to establish your "Free State." Whether a particular people wish to grant their republican government that particular power is ultimately up to them, but to imply that the act of establishing any level of state-sponsored healthcare is inherently wrong and illiberal is, to put it bluntly, unAmerican. The language of the Declaration of Independence is far less ambiguous about the validity of a government acting to secure life for its citizens than it is about a government paving roads.
What we are faced with here is a collection of reductia ad absurdum, dueling "Modest Proposals." Limited and overtaxed state healthcare resources leave us with the electorate trying to perform triage, some proposing abandonment of those who may have made poor financial decisions (which is what you would be supporting by your inaction), and others propose abandoning those who may have made poor healthcare decisions (which is what I've previously voiced my support for). The route taken by the State of Washington and agents of the State of New York involves the government stepping in to ensure that the people make good healthcare choices; it happens to be the choice that abandons the fewest citizens while still fulfilling the states' responsibilities to secure life for them.
We are faced with this manmade dillema because the United States of America is a collection of 300 million of the stingiest taxpayers in the world. This past November, voting taxpayers across the 50 states of the Union approved a record volume of bonds rather than increase taxes, ignoring the fact that bonds come with interest payments. And this is in addition to the already strong focus of instituting user fees rather than taxes, which ignores both the higher overhead needed to collect and manage those user fees as well as the way such fees dissuade users who might otherwise avail themselves of the services offered (how far out of your way have you gone to avoid driving on a toll road?). We are sitting here having this argument soley because the United States is the only country in the developed world, regardless of the state of national healthcare, that would cut off its own nose to spite its face like this.
To put it more succinctly, New York and Washington took these actions because restricting the actions of individuals was more appealing to voters than actually raising taxes. If state-provided healthcare had adequate funding and resources, these would be non-issues.
Of course, the solution in the rest of the Union is to increase taxes in New York and Washington. These two states (and precious few others) are net contributors to the federal coffers, and state legislators in the rest of the country will scoff the "high" cost of living in New York City or Seattle (the comparison between those two cities and Tokyo or Paris is never made) on one day, but turn around and insist that the federal government increase grants to state Medicaid programs the next.
At least these two states are acting to take care of their own and manage their own affairs.
Both of our proposals would have the state abandon its legitimate responsibility to the lives of the people. The route taken by these two states pe
"If my license got a stamp that said I was a smoker and couldn't take part in any state funded healthcare..."
Note that I also included group policies as well. I don't see how having your coworkers pay higher insurance rates for your own foolish choices is in any way a morally superior choice.
Get your own individual policy (and be sure to tell your insurer that you're a smoker), or start saving money now.
"Now consider this fact, blacks have a higher incidence of heart disease, does that mean they'll get treated to "separate but equal" again with federal healthcare?"
To my knowledge, few people aside from the likes of John Howard Griffin woke up one morning and said "I want to be black!" But the various ailments people face from (e. g.) smoking, especially if they picked up the habit after the mandatory health warnings were placed on the packaging, were brought upon themselves voluntarily. It is wholly by their actions, not their nature that they have emphysema, and as such they alone bear the responsibility.
"My position is this: If the feds want nationalized health care, then suck up the costs no matter what we do."
"The feds" (or more properly in this case, the state) are not separate agents here. We live in republics, and if you are going to accept other peoples money (i. e. my money), then you should learn to abide by the restrictions on it, or don't accept it at all.
"Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?"
If the state is to be exptected to pay for a steady stream of oxygen tanks, heart stints and bypasses and the like, then the state is justified in reducing the costs to the taxpayers by reducing their frequency.
I would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
I don't particularly mind people doing stupid things that kill them where they stand (unless the local morgue is particularly overtaxed), but in the case of activities that place an undue burden on public health resoures, resoures that must be shared between all citizens of the state, then the rest of the people have the right to take action, in their own self-interest, to prevent that burden. Whether they treat the demand side of the problem (by segregating off abusers into their own "separate but equal" healthcare system) or the supply side (by banning the materials in question) is up to them, but one way or the other, your right to smoke ends where it effects the livlihood of others.
"Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle."
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state, typically the elderly and infirm who are receiving expensive treatments for the effects of trans-fats and smoking, these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me.
It's like state seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws; it's not the state saying "These things are good for you" so much as "Ambulance rides are expensive and our emergency rooms are full."
"I would really like to know the judge's credentials for this kind of case. He may have a law background but what does he know about computers and technology (and related laws)"
He's there because he had the credentials and got elected.
What would you rather have, the current system, or one where the judge is expected to defer to the opinions of "experts" in all cases? I would rather have judges misrule based on lack of knowledge rather than misrule because (e. g.) the expert from Diebold told him it could never happen.
Besides, it's the task of the lawyers on both sides to give the needed information to the judge in the course of arguing their respective stances. If the judge didn't understand why the code was needed, at least part of the blame should be rested with the candidate's legal team for not explaining why the code was needed to begin with.
"The article clearly states that the changed behaviour could be seen after infecting the mice with toxoplasmose and be reversed by treating the infection."
The article never states that something similar was attempted with humans. No infestations in humans were treated during the course of this investigation.
"Most infections result from eating undercooked meat, not from owning cats."
Straw man. I still didn't see anything to affirm that the changes in personality were caused the parasites rather than the infection being an effect of risk-taking in the personalities in question.
"Yes, if you want to be obtuse, we can never "prove" causation."
On the contrary, it's been demonstrated before, only in lab rats (see how a rat acts, expose it to the parasites, see how the rat acts, kill the parasites, see how the rat acts). However, nothing similar has ever been performed with humans; the researcher is simply assuming that what goes for lab rats also goes for humans.
"The researchers have tested the mechanism. RTFA."
I did. The causal relationship was demonstrated, but on lab rats. As far as humans are concerned, all that was done (as usual) was to find a correlation between having the parasites in your system and having certain personality traits. Things like "Does their personality change if you remove the parasites?" test was performed on the rats, but not on humans, rather it was assumed that "causal relationship with rats" == "causal relationship with humans."
Even since the last time this came up, I haven't seen anything done to differentiate between "symptoms of infection" and "traits of average cat owners."
"If one can see through the ice then one can see through solid rock."
WTF?
I can see through ice with my naked eyes if it's thin enough, but the same can't be said about granite because they're two completely different mediums, with different molecular structures, different opacities and different electromagnetic conducting properties.
Besides, if this technology were capable of seeing through solid rock, it would be completely useless for the stated goal: you want the radar waves to bounce off the rock below the ice so you can see what it looks like.
Put the Lensman books down, pilot waves can't violate special relativity.
"A few years back the US developed a radar that was used to map the banks of where the Nile river was a 100 years ago."
Because the differences in soil consistency doesn't require the ability to see more than a meter or so underground to detect.
The rest of your post suggests that your aluminum foil hat is on too tight.
"a 100 dollar profit is still a profit, this article makes it seem like these people are losing money on the system"
Even assuming they get to pocket all that $100 after eBay fees and the like, making that $100 required an investment of both $600 as well as a great deal of time and effort (standing in line, preparing the auction, relisting and revising the auction, etc.) that, when all is said and done, isn't looking all that much better than some minimum wage job. I can make $100 in one night delivering pizza, and it doesn't cost me $600 to do it.
"At first glance, this almost sounds reasonable, until you stop and think about it. It relies on the content creator to somehow guess what's "objectionable," and put the tag in the appropriate place."
So you'd rather have us throw the baby out with the bathwater, denying the ability of us who wish to show just the slightest modicum of common courtesy to others (which is really what this tag is all about) simply because it "might not always be accurate?" What next, "People shouldn't offer bus seats to little old ladies with bad hips because there's a slight chance that one might get offended by the gesture?"
Besides, if a reader is interested in what a website has to say, enough so that he's visiting the website and reading the material, odds are he and the creator have reasonably similar tastes and social mores.
"It is interesting to note that the founding fathers met in closed doors."
As delegates from their state governments, they were not directly responsible to the people to begin with. There would be no reason for the people to have direct access as it was the state legislatures (the ones who still have the right to alter the constitution without any involvement from the federal government) they were held accountable by.
And once the document was crafted, it was placed before the popularly-elected state legislatures for ratification, who were directly responsible to the people, and there was heated debate before the court of public opinion on the matter, which is why three of your "Founding Fathers" got together and "acted for the camera" by writing a long series of letters "to the People of the State of New York."
And even then, the document presented to the state legislatures was ratified only on the condition that a bill of rights would be proposed by the First Congress (with publicly accountable Representatives), proposed by James "We don't need no stinkin' personal rights" Madison himself, and then ratified, again, by the popularly elected (and publicly accountable) state legislatures.
In the contest between public accountability and the "Divine Right of the Founding Fathers," republicanism won. Get over it.
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
What are you, Amish? I burn oil and have indoor plumbing. The Enlightenment was about more than just esoteric, metaphisical philosophy. If people didn't start to question things like "free will" and "determinism," we'd all still be unreformed monarchists instead of sparking three centuries or so of revolutions.
I was under the impression that members of the BSA were expected to do such patriotic acts as looking at the picture on the back of quarters or dollar bills from time to time. The eagle was adopted as the national sybol of the United States well before Baden-Powell was born, and over a century before he exported his idea.
I could say decidedly snarky about BSA's stance on political and social issues, but instead I'll just say this: so what? Why is a person's membership in such an organization notable?
The fact that the headline is "Former President Dies" and not "Eagle Scout Dies" suggests that having BSA's name attatched to Ford is more notable for the BSA than for Ford.
Slashdot Mirror
"The person transported pays for the ambulance ride (it's part of the hospital bill) and the hospital will gladly take in another payment. More injuries == more money for the medical system."
What fantasy world do you live in where everybody who might be injured in a traffic accident always had the money to pay for ambulance rides and hospital stays? Have you taken a look around your local emergency room at any time in the past decade or three?
Even if car ownership in any way suggested that one was always able to pay for such services, there's still the simple matter of pedestrians.
"In that case, what they ought to do is not ban the substances, but merely make you ineligible for public health care if you use them."
And, in the interest of fairness, the people such as yourself who support trying to keep track of who uses and who doesn't rather than outright banning the substance should be the only ones who bear the cost of the new layer of bueraucracy needed to keep track of who uses what.
As I said in another post, the bans were passed because it was the option that involved no new taxes.
"Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance."
I knew somebody who failed civics would bring this up. In case you've forgotten, you're talking about a federal constitution, while I specifically and deliberately focused on the states. While I agree that the role of the federal government getting involved in an individual's healthcare is, at best, debatable, there is nothing in the federal constitution denying the states any involvement. Go reread the Ninth Amendment.
"However just because they do it doesn't mean they should bar smoking, every or alomost every state has a tax of tobacco and if this tax isn't there to pay for higher healthcare costs for smokers then it's not my fault."
Note that you felt compelled to use the word "should." Whether a state should enact such laws is a political question, but whether they can is hardly debatable, well... I believe I've already made my stance clear.
"Also when people get health insurance they pay more for the coverage. Fact is is that smokers do pay more for health insurance."
You are paying more for health insurance while you have it, while smoking and trans-fat consumption cause lifelong problems. Unless you are able to guarantee that you will always be insured and never fall under the aegis of state programs designed to attend to those who are otherwise unable to afford such insurance, it is (to say the least) in your own self interest to continue paying into such state programs; an insurance policy for your health insurance.
"I didn't approve of any bonds. I vote for liberty and small government, which most of the tyme would mean a balanced budget."
Then I hope, for the sake of your own principles, you do not use any of the resources those bonds paid for, demonstrating through your own actions that the money was truly not needed.
"If all of the federal agencies et alia that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA were abolished then taxes wouldn't need to be as high as they are."
Aside from the fact that you seem to be conflating the state and federal governments, taxes are not high! The tax footprint we live under is ridiculously low for the industrialized world, and the unseemly amounts of debt we've amassed isn't a coincidence. And it is the fiscally irresponsible voters such as yourself that maintain the status quo, refusing to fund even the state-provided resources that you yourself use. We don't enact any new taxes, our debt skyrockets, our infrastructure falls apart, and our standard of living continues to decline, and there is no reason to believe that things will not continue to decline to the Third World level at which we tax ourselves.
Of course, if you really insist on focusing on federal taxes, if the Union dissolved tomorrow, it is the states like New York and Washington, thanks to these ultimately fiscally responsible laws, that would be able to make the adjustment with the least amount of change. What was once collected for federal coffers would be diverted to newfound responsibilities for defense and diplomacy, while the rest of the states, who need federal money because their own voters are too stupid and irresponsible to pay for things themselves (indeed, populated by people such as yourself who deny their necessity), are the ones most likely to descend into civil war an anarchy.
"There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this."
No, that's a tax, not a user fee. In order for fuel tax to be a user fee, there'd need to be state agents posted at all border crossings, whose task it would be to measure the amount of fuel you have in your vehicle both leaving and returning to the state, to ensure that you do not drive on state roads with fuel you bought in another state (which would certainly be cheaper, since they're not the ones that need to employ such fuel monitors). Us
Property? I don't know where you live, but here in the United States, rights come from birth. What feudalistic society do you live in and why haven't you gotten around to freeing the serfs?
Insofar that medical treatment extends one's life, American republicanism expressly states that it is a valid aim (indeed, a raison d'etre) of the state to ensure that all citizens can obtain it. This is from a document ratified by delegates of the duly elected legislature of the state in which you wish to establish your "Free State." Whether a particular people wish to grant their republican government that particular power is ultimately up to them, but to imply that the act of establishing any level of state-sponsored healthcare is inherently wrong and illiberal is, to put it bluntly, unAmerican. The language of the Declaration of Independence is far less ambiguous about the validity of a government acting to secure life for its citizens than it is about a government paving roads.
What we are faced with here is a collection of reductia ad absurdum, dueling "Modest Proposals." Limited and overtaxed state healthcare resources leave us with the electorate trying to perform triage, some proposing abandonment of those who may have made poor financial decisions (which is what you would be supporting by your inaction), and others propose abandoning those who may have made poor healthcare decisions (which is what I've previously voiced my support for). The route taken by the State of Washington and agents of the State of New York involves the government stepping in to ensure that the people make good healthcare choices; it happens to be the choice that abandons the fewest citizens while still fulfilling the states' responsibilities to secure life for them.
We are faced with this manmade dillema because the United States of America is a collection of 300 million of the stingiest taxpayers in the world. This past November, voting taxpayers across the 50 states of the Union approved a record volume of bonds rather than increase taxes, ignoring the fact that bonds come with interest payments. And this is in addition to the already strong focus of instituting user fees rather than taxes, which ignores both the higher overhead needed to collect and manage those user fees as well as the way such fees dissuade users who might otherwise avail themselves of the services offered (how far out of your way have you gone to avoid driving on a toll road?). We are sitting here having this argument soley because the United States is the only country in the developed world, regardless of the state of national healthcare, that would cut off its own nose to spite its face like this.
To put it more succinctly, New York and Washington took these actions because restricting the actions of individuals was more appealing to voters than actually raising taxes. If state-provided healthcare had adequate funding and resources, these would be non-issues.
Of course, the solution in the rest of the Union is to increase taxes in New York and Washington. These two states (and precious few others) are net contributors to the federal coffers, and state legislators in the rest of the country will scoff the "high" cost of living in New York City or Seattle (the comparison between those two cities and Tokyo or Paris is never made) on one day, but turn around and insist that the federal government increase grants to state Medicaid programs the next.
At least these two states are acting to take care of their own and manage their own affairs.
Both of our proposals would have the state abandon its legitimate responsibility to the lives of the people. The route taken by these two states pe
"If my license got a stamp that said I was a smoker and couldn't take part in any state funded healthcare..."
Note that I also included group policies as well. I don't see how having your coworkers pay higher insurance rates for your own foolish choices is in any way a morally superior choice.
Get your own individual policy (and be sure to tell your insurer that you're a smoker), or start saving money now.
"Now consider this fact, blacks have a higher incidence of heart disease, does that mean they'll get treated to "separate but equal" again with federal healthcare?"
To my knowledge, few people aside from the likes of John Howard Griffin woke up one morning and said "I want to be black!" But the various ailments people face from (e. g.) smoking, especially if they picked up the habit after the mandatory health warnings were placed on the packaging, were brought upon themselves voluntarily. It is wholly by their actions, not their nature that they have emphysema, and as such they alone bear the responsibility.
"My position is this: If the feds want nationalized health care, then suck up the costs no matter what we do."
"The feds" (or more properly in this case, the state) are not separate agents here. We live in republics, and if you are going to accept other peoples money (i. e. my money), then you should learn to abide by the restrictions on it, or don't accept it at all.
"Now that is a liberal. Bitch at the Republicans accusing them of "trading liberty for security" but if it saves money, why not!?"
If the state is to be exptected to pay for a steady stream of oxygen tanks, heart stints and bypasses and the like, then the state is justified in reducing the costs to the taxpayers by reducing their frequency.
I would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
I don't particularly mind people doing stupid things that kill them where they stand (unless the local morgue is particularly overtaxed), but in the case of activities that place an undue burden on public health resoures, resoures that must be shared between all citizens of the state, then the rest of the people have the right to take action, in their own self-interest, to prevent that burden. Whether they treat the demand side of the problem (by segregating off abusers into their own "separate but equal" healthcare system) or the supply side (by banning the materials in question) is up to them, but one way or the other, your right to smoke ends where it effects the livlihood of others.
"Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle."
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state, typically the elderly and infirm who are receiving expensive treatments for the effects of trans-fats and smoking, these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me.
It's like state seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws; it's not the state saying "These things are good for you" so much as "Ambulance rides are expensive and our emergency rooms are full."
Be careful what you wish for. 2005 has an account of a winner who believed similarly.
"I would really like to know the judge's credentials for this kind of case. He may have a law background but what does he know about computers and technology (and related laws)"
He's there because he had the credentials and got elected.
What would you rather have, the current system, or one where the judge is expected to defer to the opinions of "experts" in all cases? I would rather have judges misrule based on lack of knowledge rather than misrule because (e. g.) the expert from Diebold told him it could never happen.
Besides, it's the task of the lawyers on both sides to give the needed information to the judge in the course of arguing their respective stances. If the judge didn't understand why the code was needed, at least part of the blame should be rested with the candidate's legal team for not explaining why the code was needed to begin with.
"The article clearly states that the changed behaviour could be seen after infecting the mice with toxoplasmose and be reversed by treating the infection."
The article never states that something similar was attempted with humans. No infestations in humans were treated during the course of this investigation.
"Most infections result from eating undercooked meat, not from owning cats."
Straw man. I still didn't see anything to affirm that the changes in personality were caused the parasites rather than the infection being an effect of risk-taking in the personalities in question.
"Yes, if you want to be obtuse, we can never "prove" causation."
On the contrary, it's been demonstrated before, only in lab rats (see how a rat acts, expose it to the parasites, see how the rat acts, kill the parasites, see how the rat acts). However, nothing similar has ever been performed with humans; the researcher is simply assuming that what goes for lab rats also goes for humans.
"The researchers have tested the mechanism. RTFA."
I did. The causal relationship was demonstrated, but on lab rats. As far as humans are concerned, all that was done (as usual) was to find a correlation between having the parasites in your system and having certain personality traits. Things like "Does their personality change if you remove the parasites?" test was performed on the rats, but not on humans, rather it was assumed that "causal relationship with rats" == "causal relationship with humans."
Correlation != causation.
Even since the last time this came up, I haven't seen anything done to differentiate between "symptoms of infection" and "traits of average cat owners."
"If one can see through the ice then one can see through solid rock."
WTF?
I can see through ice with my naked eyes if it's thin enough, but the same can't be said about granite because they're two completely different mediums, with different molecular structures, different opacities and different electromagnetic conducting properties.
Besides, if this technology were capable of seeing through solid rock, it would be completely useless for the stated goal: you want the radar waves to bounce off the rock below the ice so you can see what it looks like.
Put the Lensman books down, pilot waves can't violate special relativity.
"A few years back the US developed a radar that was used to map the banks of where the Nile river was a 100 years ago."
Because the differences in soil consistency doesn't require the ability to see more than a meter or so underground to detect.
The rest of your post suggests that your aluminum foil hat is on too tight.
Then where will Belldandy and her sisters get their bracelets?
"a 100 dollar profit is still a profit, this article makes it seem like these people are losing money on the system"
Even assuming they get to pocket all that $100 after eBay fees and the like, making that $100 required an investment of both $600 as well as a great deal of time and effort (standing in line, preparing the auction, relisting and revising the auction, etc.) that, when all is said and done, isn't looking all that much better than some minimum wage job. I can make $100 in one night delivering pizza, and it doesn't cost me $600 to do it.
"Generic Marine (no character customization allowed)"
What about the "hot gunny" subclass?
"At first glance, this almost sounds reasonable, until you stop and think about it. It relies on the content creator to somehow guess what's "objectionable," and put the tag in the appropriate place."
So you'd rather have us throw the baby out with the bathwater, denying the ability of us who wish to show just the slightest modicum of common courtesy to others (which is really what this tag is all about) simply because it "might not always be accurate?" What next, "People shouldn't offer bus seats to little old ladies with bad hips because there's a slight chance that one might get offended by the gesture?"
Besides, if a reader is interested in what a website has to say, enough so that he's visiting the website and reading the material, odds are he and the creator have reasonably similar tastes and social mores.
"Just put some researchers playing WoW for a week and I bet a better research would came out."
Best. Thesis. Ever.
"It is interesting to note that the founding fathers met in closed doors."
As delegates from their state governments, they were not directly responsible to the people to begin with. There would be no reason for the people to have direct access as it was the state legislatures (the ones who still have the right to alter the constitution without any involvement from the federal government) they were held accountable by.
And once the document was crafted, it was placed before the popularly-elected state legislatures for ratification, who were directly responsible to the people, and there was heated debate before the court of public opinion on the matter, which is why three of your "Founding Fathers" got together and "acted for the camera" by writing a long series of letters "to the People of the State of New York."
And even then, the document presented to the state legislatures was ratified only on the condition that a bill of rights would be proposed by the First Congress (with publicly accountable Representatives), proposed by James "We don't need no stinkin' personal rights" Madison himself, and then ratified, again, by the popularly elected (and publicly accountable) state legislatures.
In the contest between public accountability and the "Divine Right of the Founding Fathers," republicanism won. Get over it.
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
What are you, Amish? I burn oil and have indoor plumbing. The Enlightenment was about more than just esoteric, metaphisical philosophy. If people didn't start to question things like "free will" and "determinism," we'd all still be unreformed monarchists instead of sparking three centuries or so of revolutions.
"Why do you think Apollo 11's lunar module was called "The Eagle"?"
You tell me. Probably for the same reason they're only called "Eagle Scouts" in the US and former posessions (since we're a bunch of traitorous republicans).
I was under the impression that members of the BSA were expected to do such patriotic acts as looking at the picture on the back of quarters or dollar bills from time to time. The eagle was adopted as the national sybol of the United States well before Baden-Powell was born, and over a century before he exported his idea.
Boy Scout first and patriot second?
I could say decidedly snarky about BSA's stance on political and social issues, but instead I'll just say this: so what? Why is a person's membership in such an organization notable?
The fact that the headline is "Former President Dies" and not "Eagle Scout Dies" suggests that having BSA's name attatched to Ford is more notable for the BSA than for Ford.