Actually, Cleveland (and much of northern Ohio) is the result of having the giant chickens pass through on their way to Indiana. Of course, the next result of the giant chickens is Gary, IN and southern Chicago.
This is a very unusual situation -- a jig making jig.
No, I don't see how it is unusual at all. The only way they really could constrain people from marketing the jigs is if each customer signed into some sort of contract, which was a prerequisite for actually getting the jig-tool. Then, each tool is registered, in a legally-binding way, to a customer, who is then liable for violating a real contract.
This is a business model that simply does not work well for high-volume products. For this sort of jig-tool, all the company can do is protect their patent on the design.
I think you fail to realize that you don't really own anything anyway. Anyone can come and take away what you think of as "yours" with little or no valid reason.
Well, this is where the Second Amendment and the Fouth Amendment step in and is why those pesky NRA folk actually have a point.
And by this, I mean substituting "Monsanto" with any cartel or mafia organization that comes to mind. Rewording the whole thing would be kind of silly.
Don't buy it if you don't like the conditions. Oh, and tell your friends not to as well.
If it's a useful tool, what about buying it and ignoring the EULA. If the company questions whether you obtained it properly, say "I got it at a flea market. I didn't see any EULA attached to it--I bought it fair and square"
is that Diebold is also the company responsible for protecting the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
Well, that way they could install automatic shredders to be used after the next round of elections are complete. Once the self-appointed oligarchy is complete, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the DoI are swiftly made into confetti. People who then ask, "Well what about our Constitional rights?" recived this answer, "What Constition? I don't see no Constitution?"
Now if only we could figure out why the hell the ACLU has such wood for the electronic voting machines...
Well, speaking optimistically, perhaps the ACLU didn't understand the technical issues and the potential corruption that electronic voting allows. Perhaps they saw electronic voting as an easy solution to other problems seen over the years and made decisions with the right intentions just not the right knowledge.
Pessimistically speaking, maybe the ACLU can be bought out, too?
I agree. This reminds me of the "DEA vs. Evil" articles I've seen published in Reader's Digest. They also had a "why privacy is overrated" article a few years ago. I almost wonder if they are not an independent publication but a propoganda one (taking crimes invented by legislation and reinforcing that they are "for our protection").
States which enguage in invasions, occupations and state sponsored terrorism are far more likely to be the targets of "terrorism" than those which don't.
Yes, which is why offensive defense is of such debatable value and certainly leaves a questionable legacy in the history books.
Are you blaming problems with the US healthcare system on elitism among doctors?
I said there were many factors. Elitism isn't the biggest one, of course; however, I have read arguments that some doctors use their licensure to maintain a monopoly of sorts to keep out physician's assistents and nurse practitioners, for example. Of course, I'm not an expert, but it doesn't take a lot of observation to see some of these problems in health care.
Subsidized insurance is taken into account in every analysis of this situation I've ever heard of.
Those analyses don't take into account the fact that people don't know the true cost of health care, so they consume, keep consuming, and then consume some more. I know people who are on way too many prescriptions for largely life-style related issues and know people who are hypochondriacs and can get away with it due to the transparent costs, for example.
If people really knew that there is no free lunch regarding health care (the money comes from somewhere), they would tend to practice personal restraint rather than go willy-nilly and rack up on the doctor's visits. Putting individuals back into the cost equation adds a vital market constraint to the costs of prescriptions, doctor's fees, etc. In the long term, the ideal is to drive costs down, such that insurance (real insurance, not this all-inclusive crap we have today) would be practical again.
On the other hand, most doctors do not like the current system - it makes caring for patients, who are real live human beings, more difficult (or impossible).
This will get worse under a nationalized system, especially one that eliminates patient choice to seek out private alternatives.
A disturbing number of patients are not cared for adequately under the current system, and *would* be cared for adequately through a more socially oriented system.
The reason this is a fallacy, is that socialized systems increase the demand for health care (the "free lunch" syndrome) to the point that costs have to go up to meet that demand, unless, of course, enough qualified doctors and nurses magically appear to handle the load. I don't believe in magic.
Also, HMO's do not represent privatized healthcare. They are still too tightly regulated.
join the people trying to figure out how to make it better
Well, in a small way, that's what I'm trying to do. In short, I am arguing in favor of the libertarian viewpoint.
knee-jerk reaction against socialism
I don't see how recognizing the thousands of years worth of history regarding human nature is "knee-jerk".
This is bullshit. Tyranny and oppression through socialized health care?
Yup. Nationalized health care puts your intimate health data directly into the hands of the federal government. It puts a mandated tax on your income, where failing to pay it is punishable with a prison term. It takes away an individual's choice to seek out what is best for him and his family. It takes away the freedom of the free market to seek out alternative methods of care, when the money is coming from a single highly-regulated-by-law source. It also brings religion into government, where, now, government regulation determines people's choices regarding the outcome of their lives and the types of treatment they believe in.
Socialized health care is unconstitutional, which means they would have to ratify an entire new amendment not unlike that for income tax (income tax would be unconstitutional, too, if not for the amendment).
Also, profiteering, while it seems to be very inhumane, opens opportunities to correct it. For a recent example, look at all the credit counseling services that have started up in the last several years. Personal debt is at an all time high in the USA, and the market is trying to correct itself, which is essential to mitigate another depression occurring (hopefully it isn't too late).
This is the problem with "terrorism". Anyone can become a "terrorist" at any moment for no predictable reason. Thus, the only practical solution is to ignore "terrorism" as a law enforcement issue and make it into a social issue. Terrorism is a social problem like any other crime.
These problems are due to lots of factors: elitism among doctors, the FDA, employers hiding costs by subsidizing insurance, etc. If you look around, also, you'll read plenty of critizism about socialized care elsewhere.
In the USA, the issue is really one of freedom, where socialization is an unambiguous step towards tyranny and oppression through taxation and controlled markets.
Re:Alternatively, try the plain truth
on
Software Exorcism
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure it matters so much, given that they get by with a name like "blank-o". People buy sinks based on features rather than brand, because it is very likely that one stamped stainless steel tub will hold up just as well as another.
Slashdot Mirror
chickens the size of Cleveland
Actually, Cleveland (and much of northern Ohio) is the result of having the giant chickens pass through on their way to Indiana. Of course, the next result of the giant chickens is Gary, IN and southern Chicago.
What are they supposed to do with it?
Mixed drinks.
This is a very unusual situation -- a jig making jig.
No, I don't see how it is unusual at all. The only way they really could constrain people from marketing the jigs is if each customer signed into some sort of contract, which was a prerequisite for actually getting the jig-tool. Then, each tool is registered, in a legally-binding way, to a customer, who is then liable for violating a real contract.
This is a business model that simply does not work well for high-volume products. For this sort of jig-tool, all the company can do is protect their patent on the design.
Of course, IANAL.
So, do you prefer shink-wrap by vacuum seal or shrink-wrap by heat gun?
I think people do know the Democratic Party's platform. No need to repeat it, here.
I think you fail to realize that you don't really own anything anyway. Anyone can come and take away what you think of as "yours" with little or no valid reason.
Well, this is where the Second Amendment and the Fouth Amendment step in and is why those pesky NRA folk actually have a point.
Round-up is a poision right?
If you look at the ingredients, it's basically a salt solution (not table salt, but similar in effect).
word substitution
And by this, I mean substituting "Monsanto" with any cartel or mafia organization that comes to mind. Rewording the whole thing would be kind of silly.
What you just described, with some word substitution, would be a good description of organized crime. Am I wrong?
Don't buy it if you don't like the conditions. Oh, and tell your friends not to as well.
If it's a useful tool, what about buying it and ignoring the EULA. If the company questions whether you obtained it properly, say "I got it at a flea market. I didn't see any EULA attached to it--I bought it fair and square"
is that Diebold is also the company responsible for protecting the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.
Well, that way they could install automatic shredders to be used after the next round of elections are complete. Once the self-appointed oligarchy is complete, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the DoI are swiftly made into confetti. People who then ask, "Well what about our Constitional rights?" recived this answer, "What Constition? I don't see no Constitution?"
Now if only we could figure out why the hell the ACLU has such wood for the electronic voting machines...
Well, speaking optimistically, perhaps the ACLU didn't understand the technical issues and the potential corruption that electronic voting allows. Perhaps they saw electronic voting as an easy solution to other problems seen over the years and made decisions with the right intentions just not the right knowledge.
Pessimistically speaking, maybe the ACLU can be bought out, too?
We're a virus with shoes...
While this is generally true, I have trouble accepting any argument that uses the word "fecundity."
I agree. This reminds me of the "DEA vs. Evil" articles I've seen published in Reader's Digest. They also had a "why privacy is overrated" article a few years ago. I almost wonder if they are not an independent publication but a propoganda one (taking crimes invented by legislation and reinforcing that they are "for our protection").
States which enguage in invasions, occupations and state sponsored terrorism are far more likely to be the targets of "terrorism" than those which don't.
Yes, which is why offensive defense is of such debatable value and certainly leaves a questionable legacy in the history books.
Are you blaming problems with the US healthcare system on elitism among doctors?
I said there were many factors. Elitism isn't the biggest one, of course; however, I have read arguments that some doctors use their licensure to maintain a monopoly of sorts to keep out physician's assistents and nurse practitioners, for example. Of course, I'm not an expert, but it doesn't take a lot of observation to see some of these problems in health care.
Subsidized insurance is taken into account in every analysis of this situation I've ever heard of.
Those analyses don't take into account the fact that people don't know the true cost of health care, so they consume, keep consuming, and then consume some more. I know people who are on way too many prescriptions for largely life-style related issues and know people who are hypochondriacs and can get away with it due to the transparent costs, for example.
If people really knew that there is no free lunch regarding health care (the money comes from somewhere), they would tend to practice personal restraint rather than go willy-nilly and rack up on the doctor's visits. Putting individuals back into the cost equation adds a vital market constraint to the costs of prescriptions, doctor's fees, etc. In the long term, the ideal is to drive costs down, such that insurance (real insurance, not this all-inclusive crap we have today) would be practical again.
On the other hand, most doctors do not like the current system - it makes caring for patients, who are real live human beings, more difficult (or impossible).
This will get worse under a nationalized system, especially one that eliminates patient choice to seek out private alternatives.
A disturbing number of patients are not cared for adequately under the current system, and *would* be cared for adequately through a more socially oriented system.
The reason this is a fallacy, is that socialized systems increase the demand for health care (the "free lunch" syndrome) to the point that costs have to go up to meet that demand, unless, of course, enough qualified doctors and nurses magically appear to handle the load. I don't believe in magic.
Also, HMO's do not represent privatized healthcare. They are still too tightly regulated.
join the people trying to figure out how to make it better
Well, in a small way, that's what I'm trying to do. In short, I am arguing in favor of the libertarian viewpoint.
knee-jerk reaction against socialism
I don't see how recognizing the thousands of years worth of history regarding human nature is "knee-jerk".
This is bullshit. Tyranny and oppression through socialized health care?
Yup. Nationalized health care puts your intimate health data directly into the hands of the federal government. It puts a mandated tax on your income, where failing to pay it is punishable with a prison term. It takes away an individual's choice to seek out what is best for him and his family. It takes away the freedom of the free market to seek out alternative methods of care, when the money is coming from a single highly-regulated-by-law source. It also brings religion into government, where, now, government regulation determines people's choices regarding the outcome of their lives and the types of treatment they believe in.
Socialized health care is unconstitutional, which means they would have to ratify an entire new amendment not unlike that for income tax (income tax would be unconstitutional, too, if not for the amendment).
Also, profiteering, while it seems to be very inhumane, opens opportunities to correct it. For a recent example, look at all the credit counseling services that have started up in the last several years. Personal debt is at an all time high in the USA, and the market is trying to correct itself, which is essential to mitigate another depression occurring (hopefully it isn't too late).
It takes a lot of resources to support media streaming, with video requiring a lot more than audio.
If anyone needs convincing, take a look at prices for professional video streaming cards (MPEG in hardware, etc.).
Basically, vote with your wallet early and often.
This is the problem with "terrorism". Anyone can become a "terrorist" at any moment for no predictable reason. Thus, the only practical solution is to ignore "terrorism" as a law enforcement issue and make it into a social issue. Terrorism is a social problem like any other crime.
These problems are due to lots of factors: elitism among doctors, the FDA, employers hiding costs by subsidizing insurance, etc. If you look around, also, you'll read plenty of critizism about socialized care elsewhere.
In the USA, the issue is really one of freedom, where socialization is an unambiguous step towards tyranny and oppression through taxation and controlled markets.
"Nothing personal, this is business"
Is that what you told the telco guy, afterwards?
Mozilla 2.0 *IS* Firebird 1.0
Now, that's great branding!
I'm not sure it matters so much, given that they get by with a name like "blank-o". People buy sinks based on features rather than brand, because it is very likely that one stamped stainless steel tub will hold up just as well as another.
Tux is not a very good logo.
Rename him "Fux," get a product placement spot on Scary Movie 4, and watch the ignorant masses start rolling in.
Good logos can be boiled down a strong one or two colored silhouette built with simple lines and shapes.
Well, how else are we supposed to make cool embroidered knit shirts to give the employees each year?