it is acceptable that people not have healthcare in this society, please move to the third world, where you routinely see people dying on the street of diseases and conditions requiring 50 cents and fifteeen minutes of medical attention
i mean, by saying you think some people should not have healthcare, you are openly saying you don't care baout your society
and if you don't care boaut your society, why do you expect to continue deriving benefits from it? you don't care baout society's health. ok
well then, we should stop caring about you
get off our roads
stop using our currency
stop using our electricity
stop using our transportation
oh, what? these are magical things that exist outside of a society that cares about itself and takes care of itself?
no, the truth is, your a blind selfish fuck, who wishes to deny that which takes care of him
you don't have a valid opinion or point of view, because you have no logical coherence or moral integrity
you are talking about issues you don't care about. in which case you should prove how much you really don't care, and SHUT UP
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have, then one way to do it is what we have now: the rich have it (because they are rich), the poor have it (because the poor are supported by the government), and the middle class are screwed: money is tight, rules are arcane, and what happens is the guy between jobs has to declare bankruptcy in order to get his cancer treated, or dies while filling out paperwork
this is better than nationalization? really?
i know the arguments against nationalization: lower quality, lots of waste
as if the current system doesn't have lots of waste? you ever deal with an hmo?
as if quality isn't low in the current environment with hospitals scrambling to stay open and doctors pressured by hmos to get in the door and out the door?
nationalization seems like such a nobrainer to me, but you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
"Chrome Helping Other Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"
scratch, scratch, scratch:
"Chrome Helping Obscure Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"
if your market share is tiny, then yes, awareness of alternatives helps. but for the big guys: ie and firefox, chrome represents a smaller slice of the piechart
the truth though is that chrome just slows down coders responsible for cross browser testing and compatibility;-P
its a nice browser though. its dom and javascript quirks seem very safari like. did google base chrome on safari code?
1. the idea of a democracy is to elect a representative of the people OF THAT COUNTRY ONLY. consideration of ideology outside that country is baseless, pointless, and undemocratic. in that respect, the democrats are a full representation of the left, and the republicans a full representation of the right, for the country of the united states, which is the only morally and intellectually valid geographical region you can use to determine ideological center
2. you choose to choose the median for determining right versus left on the world. not only is this wrong for the reason mentioned above, but your ideological sample is way off. if instead you were grouping the usa in with european countries, you would be correct (note that europe and canada is trending right nowadays though, and in fact in europe the far right is resurgent)
furthermore, a true world sampling of ideologies would also include countries like iran, saudi arabia, egypt, malaysia... countries that make the usa look like the far left. in which case, you can honestly say that considering a location for the ideological center of the united states puts that country at the center of the world. to the ideological left of the usa: plenty of countries. to the ideological right of the usa: plenty of countries
such as aluminum cylinders for refining uranium hexafluoride, or computer chips hardened against cosmic rays for ICBMs, are thing you don't pick up at newegg and reship to iran. simple as that
if it is something the average american joe can buy, it is something the average iranian jamal can buy. nothing to be done about it except accept. nonissue, nonstory
he can't get a tv if he is a member of a certain demographic in this country
according to a demographic every bit as ridiculous as the morons who think innoculations cause autism, the television emits stupidity rays that make kids stupid, suffer ADHD, etc.
television is television is television. it entertains and informs. end of story. its not a magical totem of evil, hellbent on turning your children into zombies
the "i don't own a tv and i have to tell everyone about it" guy
in answer to your question: who cares? why do you feel the need to tell everyone you don't own a tv? that's the real subtext of your question
and if you think that's a smarmy answer, well then i have a real answer for you: GO BUY A TV. GET CABLE OR SATELLITE. END OF STORY. your brain will not melt, you will not be contributing to the downfall of western civilization. really. or, go ahead and listen to the various unnecessary technical gymanstics you must perform offered in this thead. instead of simply going and getting yourself a simple, harmless television
this is some sort of genuine subculture. and if not owning a television turns one into a vainglorious buffoon, then please, everyone should own a television, for the sake of a healthy sense of humility. sheesh
in previous elections, grassroots fundraising was small time. dean certainly created buzz in 2004, and $, on the internet, but by far, obama has shown that internet fundraising is a tsunami. it dwarfs the old-boy network and other sources of funding
i think a lot of us lament the influence of money in american democracy. but i think this is the first election you would ever have republicans siding with that sentiment
epsilon eridani only 850 million years old? there is no way a race as ancient and wise as the vulcan could have come from such a young star system
look, i am an avid supporter of scientific progress as much as the next slashdotter, but when these so-called astronomers report something that contradicts well-established star trek canon, i have to put my foot down and wonder at the agenda of these propagandizers
the issue is making a sacrifice for the betterment of humanity. 100% absolutely, you will recieve negative impediments in your life for participating in this project. losing your privacy is a tiny one. but you do it anyway, because you are happy to make the sacrifice for the betterment of all
you don't make an important contribution to any cause, ideology, or project in this world without pain. if you make a contribution, and there is no pain, then it also isn't important
those who contribute to this project will suffer embarassingly and perhaps romantically and financially for contributing. and god bless them for that. the consideration of their privacy is but the beginning of what the ywill sacrifice, so if loss of privacy gives you pause, this projec tis really not for you, because you haven't even begun to fathom the deeper sacrifices here
security and trust models are philosophically and technologically joined at the hip with command and control models
you build a supersafe, 100% trustworthy internet, and you build the internet that beijing and tehran love
the internet is a wild and wacky and dangerous place. and it is also free. sure, there is the tragedy of the commons, but i'd much rather wade through GNA and/b/tard comments than deal with the Internet Security Office. which is what security and trust models empower
don't knock what you got until you lose it, and forever more lament the loss of the golden years
technological advances are running so far ahead of society's ability to adjust to and digest the implications of new technology, that as the advances get too far ahead, you get these absurdities which amount to nothing more than entrenched interests fighting progress
the riaa is as if the monk scribe's union rose up and sued operators of printing presses. incredibly stupid, but also impossible since the introduction of new technology back then proceeded at a slower clip
as society advances, its rate of progress seems to be retarded in a number of ways. a sort of trailing edge of reactionism, militant mediocrity, and end of the world believers
if progress is to continue in this world, the trailing edge can no longer be relied upon to simply slide into obscurity unnoticed and powerless. a sort of organized backlash arms itself against progress and undermines it
we must actively fight the trailing edge of progress. whether on legal issues, or in the relam of social morals. social conservatives and reactionary business practices must be waged war on. simply because they are already waging war on progress
Slashdot Mirror
go to the third world. see people dying of diseases and conditions 50 cents and 15 minutes of a doctor's time woudl cure
your ignorance is huge
it is acceptable that people not have healthcare in this society, please move to the third world, where you routinely see people dying on the street of diseases and conditions requiring 50 cents and fifteeen minutes of medical attention
i mean, by saying you think some people should not have healthcare, you are openly saying you don't care baout your society
and if you don't care boaut your society, why do you expect to continue deriving benefits from it? you don't care baout society's health. ok
well then, we should stop caring about you
get off our roads
stop using our currency
stop using our electricity
stop using our transportation
oh, what? these are magical things that exist outside of a society that cares about itself and takes care of itself?
no, the truth is, your a blind selfish fuck, who wishes to deny that which takes care of him
you don't have a valid opinion or point of view, because you have no logical coherence or moral integrity
you are talking about issues you don't care about. in which case you should prove how much you really don't care, and SHUT UP
please, someone point out the fault in my logic:
everyone should have healthcare insurance, correct or no?
you would be ok in a society where some people died of preventable issues simply because their finances were not in order?
ok, now that we all agree healthcare insurance is something we should all have, then one way to do it is what we have now: the rich have it (because they are rich), the poor have it (because the poor are supported by the government), and the middle class are screwed: money is tight, rules are arcane, and what happens is the guy between jobs has to declare bankruptcy in order to get his cancer treated, or dies while filling out paperwork
this is better than nationalization? really?
i know the arguments against nationalization: lower quality, lots of waste
as if the current system doesn't have lots of waste? you ever deal with an hmo?
as if quality isn't low in the current environment with hospitals scrambling to stay open and doctors pressured by hmos to get in the door and out the door?
nationalization seems like such a nobrainer to me, but you have this loud vocal opposition to the idea of nationalized healthcare in this country and i honestly can't understand the reasons for it
if you are learning about filesharing (ancient concept)
in its defunct formats (morpheus? limewire? are we going to learn about doom? microsoft bob?)
from MTV (dead network)
on a music video (dead form of art)
by wierd al yankovic (is he still alive?)
you are really really off the map, on some deserted island or in prisoner camp
it looks like a sex toy
all its good for anymore
i guess
i said i guess!
i've offended a chrome zealot. less than 3 months after release. i didn't know rabid combative fan bases grew that fast
thanks for the info ;-)
"Chrome Helping Other Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"
scratch, scratch, scratch:
"Chrome Helping Obscure Browsers Out, Says Opera CEO"
if your market share is tiny, then yes, awareness of alternatives helps. but for the big guys: ie and firefox, chrome represents a smaller slice of the piechart
the truth though is that chrome just slows down coders responsible for cross browser testing and compatibility ;-P
its a nice browser though. its dom and javascript quirks seem very safari like. did google base chrome on safari code?
1. the idea of a democracy is to elect a representative of the people OF THAT COUNTRY ONLY. consideration of ideology outside that country is baseless, pointless, and undemocratic. in that respect, the democrats are a full representation of the left, and the republicans a full representation of the right, for the country of the united states, which is the only morally and intellectually valid geographical region you can use to determine ideological center
2. you choose to choose the median for determining right versus left on the world. not only is this wrong for the reason mentioned above, but your ideological sample is way off. if instead you were grouping the usa in with european countries, you would be correct (note that europe and canada is trending right nowadays though, and in fact in europe the far right is resurgent)
furthermore, a true world sampling of ideologies would also include countries like iran, saudi arabia, egypt, malaysia... countries that make the usa look like the far left. in which case, you can honestly say that considering a location for the ideological center of the united states puts that country at the center of the world. to the ideological left of the usa: plenty of countries. to the ideological right of the usa: plenty of countries
Alien Pumpkin versus Predator Pumpkin: Whoever Wins, We... get pumpkin pie
"Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War" is the wrong title
it should read "Trolls, Strawmen, Partisan Hacks, Propagandizers, Emotionally Unstable Wingnuts/Moonbats: Please Assemble Here"
explore the web from china!
practice christianity in saudi arabia!
be an outspoken journalist in russia!
be a part of the world tour of persecution!
Microsoft's flash competitor mmorpg that works on tracing paper
such as aluminum cylinders for refining uranium hexafluoride, or computer chips hardened against cosmic rays for ICBMs, are thing you don't pick up at newegg and reship to iran. simple as that
if it is something the average american joe can buy, it is something the average iranian jamal can buy. nothing to be done about it except accept. nonissue, nonstory
he can't get a tv if he is a member of a certain demographic in this country
according to a demographic every bit as ridiculous as the morons who think innoculations cause autism, the television emits stupidity rays that make kids stupid, suffer ADHD, etc.
television is television is television. it entertains and informs. end of story. its not a magical totem of evil, hellbent on turning your children into zombies
if microsoft did this, the hoardes would be eviscerating the company
if google does this, watch the defenders come out of the woodwork
slashdot bias: microsoft bad, google good, apple shrug
its not the year 2000 folks. google is not some little darling upstart anymore. update your bias accordingly please
the "i don't own a tv and i have to tell everyone about it" guy
in answer to your question: who cares? why do you feel the need to tell everyone you don't own a tv? that's the real subtext of your question
and if you think that's a smarmy answer, well then i have a real answer for you: GO BUY A TV. GET CABLE OR SATELLITE. END OF STORY. your brain will not melt, you will not be contributing to the downfall of western civilization. really. or, go ahead and listen to the various unnecessary technical gymanstics you must perform offered in this thead. instead of simply going and getting yourself a simple, harmless television
the onion was prescient: Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
this is some sort of genuine subculture. and if not owning a television turns one into a vainglorious buffoon, then please, everyone should own a television, for the sake of a healthy sense of humility. sheesh
Obama is a tool of foreign money!
zzz
my comment would bring out the partisan hacks
in previous elections, grassroots fundraising was small time. dean certainly created buzz in 2004, and $, on the internet, but by far, obama has shown that internet fundraising is a tsunami. it dwarfs the old-boy network and other sources of funding
i think a lot of us lament the influence of money in american democracy. but i think this is the first election you would ever have republicans siding with that sentiment
epsilon eridani only 850 million years old? there is no way a race as ancient and wise as the vulcan could have come from such a young star system
look, i am an avid supporter of scientific progress as much as the next slashdotter, but when these so-called astronomers report something that contradicts well-established star trek canon, i have to put my foot down and wonder at the agenda of these propagandizers
yours,
star trek fundamentalist
the issue is making a sacrifice for the betterment of humanity. 100% absolutely, you will recieve negative impediments in your life for participating in this project. losing your privacy is a tiny one. but you do it anyway, because you are happy to make the sacrifice for the betterment of all
you don't make an important contribution to any cause, ideology, or project in this world without pain. if you make a contribution, and there is no pain, then it also isn't important
those who contribute to this project will suffer embarassingly and perhaps romantically and financially for contributing. and god bless them for that. the consideration of their privacy is but the beginning of what the ywill sacrifice, so if loss of privacy gives you pause, this projec tis really not for you, because you haven't even begun to fathom the deeper sacrifices here
security and trust models are philosophically and technologically joined at the hip with command and control models
you build a supersafe, 100% trustworthy internet, and you build the internet that beijing and tehran love
the internet is a wild and wacky and dangerous place. and it is also free. sure, there is the tragedy of the commons, but i'd much rather wade through GNA and /b/tard comments than deal with the Internet Security Office. which is what security and trust models empower
don't knock what you got until you lose it, and forever more lament the loss of the golden years
he's a twatter?
technological advances are running so far ahead of society's ability to adjust to and digest the implications of new technology, that as the advances get too far ahead, you get these absurdities which amount to nothing more than entrenched interests fighting progress
the riaa is as if the monk scribe's union rose up and sued operators of printing presses. incredibly stupid, but also impossible since the introduction of new technology back then proceeded at a slower clip
as society advances, its rate of progress seems to be retarded in a number of ways. a sort of trailing edge of reactionism, militant mediocrity, and end of the world believers
if progress is to continue in this world, the trailing edge can no longer be relied upon to simply slide into obscurity unnoticed and powerless. a sort of organized backlash arms itself against progress and undermines it
we must actively fight the trailing edge of progress. whether on legal issues, or in the relam of social morals. social conservatives and reactionary business practices must be waged war on. simply because they are already waging war on progress