Not anymore. Corporations are people too, you insensitive clod. Our Supreme Court, in their lofty wisdom, has said so. You're just jealous because our corporate citizens can buy more and better politicians than you.
. Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates
Public campaign financing. That's just crazy talk. Next thing you'll be wanting is instant run-off elections so that honest public servants would stand a chance against "friendly" candidates bought and paid for by your corporate betters. Learn your place, sir.
If one provider takes on coverage for "suspected losing cases", then they will go out of business, especially if their competitor is always only taking "profitable cases".
Try reading TFA. Pay attention to the part where (as in the summary) they explain the shift away from an all risks pool to a preferred risk pool.
Next, learn something about why healthcare is so expensive, because you clearly have no fucking idea. Hint: it is related to the business model of the insurers, not the actual cost of the delivering the care. If it were, all those other countries who are delivering better healthcare for far less money would not be doing so.
...and dangerous corner-cutting in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants is bad? Good thing that only happens in "backwards" little countries like South Korea. Right? I mean that could never happen here in the U.S. Right?
When did we stop counting the cost of government intrusion into our daily lives?
So... building and maintaining roads and bridges is an intrusion... Riiiiiight. Jeezuz, what is it about/. that attracts the simple-minded fake Libertarians who can't seem to grasp that all the things that government is supposed to provide cost money. Call it taxes. Call it user fees. Whatever, but there has to be a mechanism by which the necessary revenue is collected. Personally, I think the user fee is a stupid idea because it absolutely discourages the move to fuel efficient cars. Drop the gasoline tax, a bunch, and we can talk, but I do understand that it costs money to build and maintain "the commons".
WE need to switch to DNA-based identification, where computers can lift your DNA sample on the fly to confirm your identity rather than rely on a number and piece of paper that can be easily duplicated.
Yeah, that's a swell idea. We can adjust your health and life insurance premiums at the same time, and even check to see if your DNA is related to any unsolved crimes.
It is to obscure the fact that they are in the USA illegally.
Partly. It is also because words have connotations beyond their direct meaning. "Illegal" tends to imply that something is also wrong or immoral. Why else would our wise and noble political leaders make it illegal? But many of us feel that a free society should welcome people that want to come and make a better life for themselves.
Agreed, and a legal avenue for such a pursuit exists for anyone wishing it. QED.
There's nothing wrong with some teautiful bitties, but if you ask for a book of bedtime stories to read your kid, and the store clerk points you to "Daddy Incest Volume #3," then there's a problem. That's what's going on here. And it is a problem.
Yes, but as described, it's an indexing and access control problem. Yes, the merchant is free to solve that problem however he/she wishes, but let's not color the issue any more than it has been already.
Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.
How inconvenient for you must be that fact that in 2005 then-Senator Obama was one of the few who voted against extending the wiretap provisions of The Patriot Act. This, shortly after the abuses of those provisions had first come to light.
Do firefighters really do this? In all my life, I don't think I've ever seen a fire crew helping a cat down from a tree.
When I was still on the job, the chief of a neighboring department was known to have said, "Ever seen a cat skeleton in a tree? That's why we don't rescue cats."
Known unstable and dangerously radioactive environment. Workers fully aware of dangers and thus, arguably, more than a little careful about their every move. And still, dangerous mistakes were made. Given the profound consequences of human mistakes in the operation of nuclear reactors, tell me why, again, that it's a good idea to build them?
Right. And nukular power is safe, clean, and efficient. Right? Why, having all those government regulators is just more wasteful spending, anyway.
The Koch brothers were right. We're better off without troublesome regulations being enforced.
"We're getting our fat, legacy ass kicked in virtually every market space, because we've failed to keep up. So instead of asking the hard questions, like 'Why the hell didn't we keep up with a changing market for printer, PC's, servers, etc.', we're just going to throw shit at the culture wall to see if anything sticks."
Right. The "problem" in NYC is "the government". No. Seriously. You are quite correct, as in "The government has become the willing lackey for doing the bidding of the monied interests who pay to have 'their' candidates elected." The blame for this lies with elections laws that allow such influence peddling and with an electorate that has failed almost completely to keep itself informed about the issues affecting it and policies of those they elect.
Facebook or google pretending they are the internet again. Sorry to any of you that enjoyed the days where there were more than 2 websites.
Well, not quite. It would be the merchants who offer "free" wifi with this (so far) optional "service" that think so. The wifi still works, for now. When you can't get to anything without having a Facebook account with which to surrender your privacy, then we have a problem. "Look, barrista-dude. I bought your damn coffee and an overpriced stale pastry. Now I just want to check my stocks and no, I do not have a Facebook account."
I'm waiting for the GP to respond with something along the lines of "blah blah you wasted your vote blah blah you acted as a spoiler"... and when millions of people think that way, there's no chance of any third party candidate gaining any traction. The real problem here are apathy, excuses, and herd mentality.
Sorry, but that's just not true. In the real world, casting one's vote for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of getting elected is a waste of that vote. I am a well-informed voter and will always vote such that my vote counts for as much as possible. The only way that will change is if (yes, we're dreaming here) we switched the electoral process to some form of "instant runoff" process, wherein I could "safely" vote for the candidate I felt best represented my interests, knowing that if his/her bid failed, my vote would then be re-cast for my next choice, and so on.
Damn right, you socialist slacker. Privatize the profits and socialize the expense, whenever and wherever possible. Oh, and you forgot the part about cutting taxes for the wealthy... er..., I mean the "job creators". Joe Sixpack will just hear "tax cuts" and think that we meant that for him.
Free market competition in almost all cases, except for absolutely needed government actions, always results in intense competition and ultimately the lowest cost that a good provider can supply and maintain. Government has no interest in providing the best at the lowest cost if they run a service.
Any time the government gets involved they warp the competition one way or another with politcal ends and increase the overhead cost. Cable TV should have always been open to multiple providers so people could order what they want from whatever carrier or carriers.
Patently and demonstrably false.
For example, where electrical service is provided by a public utility district, rates are almost always lower and the service almost always better (more reliable). The reason for this is simple - the PUD operates at the pleasure of the voters who elect it's board of directors, not at the pleasure of share-holders. The same would apply to broadband service, You are right though, that cable TV should have been open to whatever carrier wanted to play. Same goes for broadband. Under the public utility model, the government builds, owns, and maintains the infrastructure. Whoever wants to run their traffic over that infrastructure pays a reasonable fee for the privilege and then competes with their peers on a level playing field.
Which is to say, "not very damned much". Please... Rolling out fiber to the home for a tiny percentage of the customers in a small market like Austin is hardly a game changer when it comes to the mythical free market for broadband providers. Then there's the peering arrangements. Here's betting that AT&T will be far from "neutral" when providing bandwidth to connections outside of their own ring. This is little more than a PR stunt, or perhaps an experiment to see "what the market will bear".
Slashdot Mirror
Lobbying used to be called bribery.
Not anymore. Corporations are people too, you insensitive clod. Our Supreme Court, in their lofty wisdom, has said so. You're just jealous because our corporate citizens can buy more and better politicians than you.
. Funds for campaigns should be taken from the city/state/country funds, in equal parts for all candidates
Public campaign financing. That's just crazy talk. Next thing you'll be wanting is instant run-off elections so that honest public servants would stand a chance against "friendly" candidates bought and paid for by your corporate betters. Learn your place, sir.
If one provider takes on coverage for "suspected losing cases", then they will go out of business, especially if their competitor is always only taking "profitable cases".
Try reading TFA. Pay attention to the part where (as in the summary) they explain the shift away from an all risks pool to a preferred risk pool.
Next, learn something about why healthcare is so expensive, because you clearly have no fucking idea. Hint: it is related to the business model of the insurers, not the actual cost of the delivering the care. If it were, all those other countries who are delivering better healthcare for far less money would not be doing so.
...whoosh.
...and dangerous corner-cutting in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants is bad? Good thing that only happens in "backwards" little countries like South Korea. Right? I mean that could never happen here in the U.S. Right?
The sooner we get rid of all this regional protectionism, the better. If I can make the same product you can for less, you should go out of business.
Right, because consumer choice is so antithetical to the so-called free market...
Cue the fan boys totally not getting this....
Do the Americans just not care?
Nailed it.
WTF is "brave" about the world of gaming platforms?
The last one is the one I care about.
When did we stop counting the cost of government intrusion into our daily lives?
So... building and maintaining roads and bridges is an intrusion... Riiiiiight. Jeezuz, what is it about /. that attracts the simple-minded fake Libertarians who can't seem to grasp that all the things that government is supposed to provide cost money. Call it taxes. Call it user fees. Whatever, but there has to be a mechanism by which the necessary revenue is collected. Personally, I think the user fee is a stupid idea because it absolutely discourages the move to fuel efficient cars. Drop the gasoline tax, a bunch, and we can talk, but I do understand that it costs money to build and maintain "the commons".
WE need to switch to DNA-based identification, where computers can lift your DNA sample on the fly to confirm your identity rather than rely on a number and piece of paper that can be easily duplicated.
Yeah, that's a swell idea. We can adjust your health and life insurance premiums at the same time, and even check to see if your DNA is related to any unsolved crimes.
It is to obscure the fact that they are in the USA illegally.
Partly. It is also because words have connotations beyond their direct meaning. "Illegal" tends to imply that something is also wrong or immoral. Why else would our wise and noble political leaders make it illegal? But many of us feel that a free society should welcome people that want to come and make a better life for themselves.
Agreed, and a legal avenue for such a pursuit exists for anyone wishing it. QED.
There's nothing wrong with some teautiful bitties, but if you ask for a book of bedtime stories to read your kid, and the store clerk points you to "Daddy Incest Volume #3," then there's a problem. That's what's going on here. And it is a problem.
Yes, but as described, it's an indexing and access control problem. Yes, the merchant is free to solve that problem however he/she wishes, but let's not color the issue any more than it has been already.
In this case, it's working like The Thought Police, but hey, at least it's responding to all the "think of the children" bleating. Right?
Well..., yeah. But that's asking an awful lot of a great many Twitter users.
Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.
How inconvenient for you must be that fact that in 2005 then-Senator Obama was one of the few who voted against extending the wiretap provisions of The Patriot Act. This, shortly after the abuses of those provisions had first come to light.
Do firefighters really do this? In all my life, I don't think I've ever seen a fire crew helping a cat down from a tree.
When I was still on the job, the chief of a neighboring department was known to have said, "Ever seen a cat skeleton in a tree? That's why we don't rescue cats."
Known unstable and dangerously radioactive environment. Workers fully aware of dangers and thus, arguably, more than a little careful about their every move. And still, dangerous mistakes were made. Given the profound consequences of human mistakes in the operation of nuclear reactors, tell me why, again, that it's a good idea to build them?
Right. And nukular power is safe, clean, and efficient. Right? Why, having all those government regulators is just more wasteful spending, anyway.
The Koch brothers were right. We're better off without troublesome regulations being enforced.
"We're getting our fat, legacy ass kicked in virtually every market space, because we've failed to keep up. So instead of asking the hard questions, like 'Why the hell didn't we keep up with a changing market for printer, PC's, servers, etc.', we're just going to throw shit at the culture wall to see if anything sticks."
Right. The "problem" in NYC is "the government". No. Seriously. You are quite correct, as in "The government has become the willing lackey for doing the bidding of the monied interests who pay to have 'their' candidates elected." The blame for this lies with elections laws that allow such influence peddling and with an electorate that has failed almost completely to keep itself informed about the issues affecting it and policies of those they elect.
Riiiight. It won't be news until the next time Google Apps goes sideways and 30,000 users at IBM are idled for the duration.
Facebook or google pretending they are the internet again. Sorry to any of you that enjoyed the days where there were more than 2 websites.
Well, not quite. It would be the merchants who offer "free" wifi with this (so far) optional "service" that think so. The wifi still works, for now. When you can't get to anything without having a Facebook account with which to surrender your privacy, then we have a problem. "Look, barrista-dude. I bought your damn coffee and an overpriced stale pastry. Now I just want to check my stocks and no, I do not have a Facebook account."
I'm waiting for the GP to respond with something along the lines of "blah blah you wasted your vote blah blah you acted as a spoiler" ... and when millions of people think that way, there's no chance of any third party candidate gaining any traction. The real problem here are apathy, excuses, and herd mentality.
Sorry, but that's just not true. In the real world, casting one's vote for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of getting elected is a waste of that vote. I am a well-informed voter and will always vote such that my vote counts for as much as possible. The only way that will change is if (yes, we're dreaming here) we switched the electoral process to some form of "instant runoff" process, wherein I could "safely" vote for the candidate I felt best represented my interests, knowing that if his/her bid failed, my vote would then be re-cast for my next choice, and so on.
Damn right, you socialist slacker. Privatize the profits and socialize the expense, whenever and wherever possible. Oh, and you forgot the part about cutting taxes for the wealthy... er..., I mean the "job creators". Joe Sixpack will just hear "tax cuts" and think that we meant that for him.
Free market competition in almost all cases, except for absolutely needed government actions, always results in intense competition and ultimately the lowest cost that a good provider can supply and maintain. Government has no interest in providing the best at the lowest cost if they run a service.
Any time the government gets involved they warp the competition one way or another with politcal ends and increase the overhead cost. Cable TV should have always been open to multiple providers so people could order what they want from whatever carrier or carriers.
Patently and demonstrably false.
For example, where electrical service is provided by a public utility district, rates are almost always lower and the service almost always better (more reliable). The reason for this is simple - the PUD operates at the pleasure of the voters who elect it's board of directors, not at the pleasure of share-holders. The same would apply to broadband service, You are right though, that cable TV should have been open to whatever carrier wanted to play. Same goes for broadband. Under the public utility model, the government builds, owns, and maintains the infrastructure. Whoever wants to run their traffic over that infrastructure pays a reasonable fee for the privilege and then competes with their peers on a level playing field.
Funny what a little competition can do...
Which is to say, "not very damned much". Please... Rolling out fiber to the home for a tiny percentage of the customers in a small market like Austin is hardly a game changer when it comes to the mythical free market for broadband providers. Then there's the peering arrangements. Here's betting that AT&T will be far from "neutral" when providing bandwidth to connections outside of their own ring. This is little more than a PR stunt, or perhaps an experiment to see "what the market will bear".