This line of argument never seems to register with progressives. They either don't understand the damaging consequences of centralizing power or are so blinded by their social engineering ambitions that they completely discount the very real possibility that expanded government powers will be used against them and their liberties, especially when the government changes and the shoe ends up on the other foot with their ass exposed for booting.
but for some reason most of the population eats tile grout instead
Mostly they just don't know any better or they don't care. It's like wine, some people drink the box wine all their lives and cannot understand why anyone would pay tens or even hundreds of dollars for a bottle. These same people are never going to pay 7-10 dollars (4-6 pounds) for a chocolate bar when the tile grout can be had for a dollar or less. Fine by me because more people enjoying fine chocolate just drives up the price even more.
I would guess that it has something to do with the various US laws and who's responsible for fraudulent transactions and not the technology. It wouldn't be the first time that lawyers have ruined what could have been a good thing for everyone here in the US. In many ways technology is the antithesis of the law. It's logical, rational and consistent. The law, at least here in the US, is none of those things.
Here in the US many merchants still require the buyer to sign the paper receipt which results in people having to put down their purchases, fumble in their purse or pockets for a pen, and then sign the receipt and hand it back to the cashier. The digital signature / pin entry terminal saves some time in these cases, but you'd be surprised how many merchants still don't have these and rely upon pen and paper instead. In these instances, cash is definitely faster unless the person ahead of you in line is organized and ready to sign quickly (which they often aren't).
With very high transaction fees, balance inquiry fees, cash advance fees, and fees on their fees. These cards are often sold in big box stores, like WalMart, and other businesses that cater to the storefront cheque cashers and payday loan crowds. That ought to tell you all that you need to know about them.
The four physicists waived their hands over the box containing Schrödinger's cat while repeating, "omine, omine, omine" before walking away without looking inside and thus the conjecture was false and the paradox is resolved.
So you totally had the last definitive timeline for primer all figured out in your head by the time the film was over? Did you ever wonder where Granger came from or how the heck he could have gotten to that point in the timeline or which box he used since the others were variously occupied during the times when he could have discovered and used them? Were you able to discern all nine distinct timelines and which Abes and Aarons were permanent and which ones weren't?
But if you say that, that means you are too stupid to follow it
Anyone who claims to follow and understand all of the timelines as they happen on the first viewing is either a liar or a savant.
Someone should have told them that character development isn't just talking about a character, but trying to get the audience to connect with the character. It was just bad.
Anyone remember Steve Jackson Games? They released a game where one of the roles you could play was a computer hacker. The FBI called it a "handbook for computer crime" and the "anarchist's cookbook of cybercrime". No charges were ever filed. It was a work of fiction.
The game you mention is the pen and paper rpg, GURPS Cyberpunk. The credits page still touts the "unsolicited comments of the United States Secret Service" as a selling point.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them. It's their free decision
Indeed it is, but I question the wisdom of their priorities. The mid 20s and early 30s are critical to the future financial and career success of the budding young professional. Maximizing savings during these early years maximizes the long term returns from compounding interest and investment growth. If income goes instead to higher healthcare premiums and taxes during these critical years, as seems likely during the second Obama term and going forward, it hurts young people much more than someone already in their 40s or 50s encountering these higher costs for the first time. Many young people aren't financially literate enough to see this and by the time they do figure it out, they will have already missed their best chances to retire as millionaires. Life is easier when you're younger, but age and infirmity catch up with us all so it's far better to have substantial private savings than to rely upon the self serving promises of elected officials who will all be dead and gone by the time we're left holding the empty bag. So if skillful management of private savings and the exercise of sound financial judgement is zealotry then I suppose that I'm a zealot, but who would you rather be when you retire? Rich Uncle Pennybags or your broke second cousin who still lives paycheck to paycheck at age 50?
One of the Democrat's huge advantages last election was that they apparently could hire competent software development teams.
Or maybe they were just fortunate that it all fell together. Somehow I doubt that these software developers were getting full freight for their services. No, they donated their time and expertise because they liked Obama and wanted to see him reelected. I doubt that they care much about the DNC or would be willing to come back and do it again for Joe Biden or Hillary, should she choose to run in 2016. On the other hand, I find it fascinating that so many of my fellow software professionals supported Obama. Do they not see that they, being amongst the upper middle class, will be some of the first ones hurt by higher taxes and health care costs? The US tax code is especially unfriendly to young, single and well paid professionals which is precisely the group that many of us fall into. The poor are subsidized and the rich don't care so it's always the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, that's hurt most by the sorts of tax and spend policies favored by Obama. College students can be forgiven for being useful idiots, but we professionals ought to have known better. I cannot help but think that those of us who voted again for Obama were voting with their hearts and not their heads.
Are you serious? I know of no US state where employers can't fire you at any time without reason.
In the United States, At-will employment is the rule, not the exception, and although it's not absolute, the burden of proof for the limited exceptions generally falls upon the terminated employees. As you might imagine, few sue and fewer still win their cases when they do. Ask any American who's worked recently and they will tell you that being laid off on short notice or fired on the spot and escorted out of the building does indeed happen and isn't all that uncommon. It's not like Europe or other places where laws protect workers from these practices, albeit with different sets of costs to society.
GM will squash them. They're a politically favored company with good connections in Washington whereas Meg Whitman was a failed Republican candidate for Governorship of California. HP will not win a legal battle with a newly reconstituted and politically favored GM.
You can bet serious money that GM had its lawyers look very carefully at the employee contracts, at least for the 18 leaders (or the most important of them). Not to say they might not lose in court, but I am sure that GM thinks the contracts allow for this.
GM is also the recent beneficiary of substantial US Government patronage in the form of generous "bankruptcy" terms and efforts on their behalf to promote the sales of electric hybrid vehicles with tax rebates, not to mention the fact that the US Treasury is still a major shareholder in GM. Furthermore, GM also just agreed to a very generous contract with a union that has the ear of the most labor friendly President in recent memory. If GM wanted to go "political" with this, they very definitely could. HP should quit while they're still ahead or at least not too far behind.
I'd like to respectfully disagree about insulting HP for this.
The management at HP has failed both the stockholders and the workers. They aren't worthy of respect.
When you're trimming a department, you sometimes have contractual obligations that require you to retain _some_ of the department or group, to support existing services.
That's not my problem, you deal with it.
When they all leave en masse, it can put a very large hole in your infrastructure
Well cry me a river.
when someone leaving poaches from their former group, it's usually a contract violation, written into the contract _precisely_ to protect assets a company has invested in and built up over time.
That's a load of bull. What part of "employment at will" don't you understand? The laws in "at will" states are very clear on this point: either party can terminate the agreement at any time without reason or prior notice. The corporations themselves have long since dispensed with any nonsense illusions of "loyalty" and so we workers have learned to be ruthless too. It's their fault that there's no loyalty anymore, so I say turnabout's fair play, "contract" (which is unenforceable anyway) be damned.
I've been involved, numerous times, in cleaning up after that kind of loss of personnel. The loss of institutional knowledge can be devastating
Maybe the company should have considered that before they went to war with their employees.
there may be no one left who knows _why_ things were done certain ways, and it can really endanger ongoing services and other contracts to lose that much of a key department without some kind of plan.
there are few things as devastating to the surviving remnant, who may believe in what they do or may really need the job to feed their families and keep medical insurance
These days it's every man for himself and his family. Make no apologies for that and have no illusions of "loyalty". The corporations look out for numero uno, so must we.
when the "elite few" depart and leave them holding the undocumented remnants of their work.
A perfect opportunity to rewrite everything the "right" way. If the company cannot afford to do that, then maybe it shouldn't continue operating (and likely won't anyway).
And if I ever do a departure interview with one such departing member of a horde who says "there is no documentation, just read the code!" I'm going to warn the staff who organize bids for my company that our hourly rates need to double, and explain why.
I never do exit interviews, nothing good ever comes of them.
we would rather believe that you can do anything if you put your mind to it.
While that's generally true, in a manner of speaking, it says nothing about the amount of time or effort required nor the quality of the finished work. Could I improve my non-existent quarterback skills with hundreds or even thousands of hours of dedicated and determined practice? Probably. Would I ever approach anything like the level of play demonstrated each week by Payton Manning and other professionals? Not a chance, not even close. People should focus on improving skill at which they have some natural talent or predisposition rather than expending tremendous effort for marginal improvements in areas where they have no special ability. Incidentally, this is why the "everyone must attend college" mantra is just nuts and doubly so when the one considers the tremendous costs of sending marginal students off to college on the public dime. Unfortunately, these sorts of reasonable cost benefit analyses are frequently subordinated to politics, or "optics" as the politicians and their fellow travelers are fond of saying, when it comes to educating our children or spending the public's money. We judge policies based upon their intentions, rather than their results, and that is our great mistake.
A policy must be judged by its results, not it's intentions. I'll concede that we haven't yet seen the full effects of ObamaCare, but in general the record of government policy as cost savings is mixed at best (and that's being very generous to the pro-government side). In my opinion, the only way to fully realize the necessary efficiency and cost savings in health care is to introduce market competition and the best way to do that is by eliminating the tax deduction on employer provided insurance and allowing people to choose whatever insurance plan suits them best, regardless of which company offers it or where they're incorporated. ObamaCare does neither of these things and so will fail to get at the heart of the problem which is too much third party pay in health care. If you're truly willing to hear an honest alternative argument on health care, one that's rarely heard anymore above the din of the left and the entrenched interests, then I challenge you to read: How to Cure Health Care and to watch Living Within our Means. At the very least you'll read and hear about policies and ideas that are worthy of an intelligent person with an open mind.
I'm still paying more every year for health care, so where's the "change" that ObamaCare promised? If past experience is anything to go by here, it's very likely that I will end up paying even more in the future. Say what you want about your neighbor, she can defend herself, but not everyone who opposed ObamaCare is stupid or ignorant of the facts. I'm staring at the "facts" every time I balance my accounts. So I ask you, what good is expensive insurance that covers less and which fewer providers accept? What do you suppose will happen to the quality of care under those conditions? What happens when the subsidy for low income people falls short and increasing numbers of middle class Americans end up with no insurance, in violation of the mandate, and are instead assessed the penalty? We shall see what happens, but better quality care and cost savings are not likely based upon what I've seen so far. The whole cost savings argument, especially coming from the left, pears to be a smokescreen designed to conceal their true intent which was always and everywhere increased wealth transfer from those who work and earn to those who don't. So don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. ObamaCare isn't going to save me any money.
but this can have a negative affect on a lot more people. In fact if it were to have a negative affect it will likely be on those without guns.
This would be a perfect response to the dingbats who made compiled this data set and released it to the public. Invert the logic and highlight those areas with low gun ownership and for even more fun, correlate that with average household income in the highlighted areas. Turnabout's fair play right?
Put E-15 in your '69 Mustang and you're just stupid.
Most gas station owners don't want to and aren't going to install separate underground tanks for E15 fuel. They'd have to install pump blending equipment that blends the fuels as they're pumped. So when the last person at the pump bought E15, there's still up to 1/3 gallon of E15 in the hose which means that your next E10 fillup is going to have about 11+% ethanol, at least for the first gallon or so. This might not be such a big deal if you're filling up your SUV, but its a huge deal if you're putting a gallon in your motorcycle or your two gallon can for use in your lawnmower. So now stations that offer E15 have to enforce a 4 gallon minimum purchase on ALL other blends of gasoline sold from the same pump. Can you think of a way to make this any less attractive for the average gas station owner? I will tell you right now that independent station owners won't offer E15 voluntarily. Almost nobody want's it and it forces expensive equipment upgrades and unpopular policies on other motorists (the 4 gallon minimum). It's time for the oil companies and gas station operators to tell the corn lobby to go stuff themselves.
Although it's not in vogue here on Slashdot, many vehicle owners do actually RTM and it generally states quite clearly in the fuel requirements section that use of fuels other than specified, generally 87-95 octane unleaded gasoline with not more than 10% ethanol, voids the warranty. Now I ask you, when faced with a warning sticker on the E15 gas pump about engine damage, what would the average consumer do? This will become like the E85 pumps. Most stations won't even offer it, because almost nobody wants it, and those that do will see very little use. If a product is so great that the government has to make use of alternatives illegal, it's time to throw the bums out. To all you politicians out there, you want to make people really hopping MAD? Damage the engines on their 10 year old cars during the slowest economic recovery from the deepest recession since WWII and see what happens. Go ahead, we dare you.
I don't think you need to provide details of medical treatments to the government, or request government permission in advance to be allowed the treatment.
Give it a few more years; ObamaCare is just getting started and they've saved the best for last.
Slashdot Mirror
This line of argument never seems to register with progressives. They either don't understand the damaging consequences of centralizing power or are so blinded by their social engineering ambitions that they completely discount the very real possibility that expanded government powers will be used against them and their liberties, especially when the government changes and the shoe ends up on the other foot with their ass exposed for booting.
American chocolate from smaller producers is often very nice
Indeed. I prefer the Scharffen Berger brand myself.
but for some reason most of the population eats tile grout instead
Mostly they just don't know any better or they don't care. It's like wine, some people drink the box wine all their lives and cannot understand why anyone would pay tens or even hundreds of dollars for a bottle. These same people are never going to pay 7-10 dollars (4-6 pounds) for a chocolate bar when the tile grout can be had for a dollar or less. Fine by me because more people enjoying fine chocolate just drives up the price even more.
I would guess that it has something to do with the various US laws and who's responsible for fraudulent transactions and not the technology. It wouldn't be the first time that lawyers have ruined what could have been a good thing for everyone here in the US. In many ways technology is the antithesis of the law. It's logical, rational and consistent. The law, at least here in the US, is none of those things.
Here in the US many merchants still require the buyer to sign the paper receipt which results in people having to put down their purchases, fumble in their purse or pockets for a pen, and then sign the receipt and hand it back to the cashier. The digital signature / pin entry terminal saves some time in these cases, but you'd be surprised how many merchants still don't have these and rely upon pen and paper instead. In these instances, cash is definitely faster unless the person ahead of you in line is organized and ready to sign quickly (which they often aren't).
Prepaid credit/debit cards.
With very high transaction fees, balance inquiry fees, cash advance fees, and fees on their fees. These cards are often sold in big box stores, like WalMart, and other businesses that cater to the storefront cheque cashers and payday loan crowds. That ought to tell you all that you need to know about them.
The four physicists waived their hands over the box containing Schrödinger's cat while repeating, "omine, omine, omine" before walking away without looking inside and thus the conjecture was false and the paradox is resolved.
So you totally had the last definitive timeline for primer all figured out in your head by the time the film was over? Did you ever wonder where Granger came from or how the heck he could have gotten to that point in the timeline or which box he used since the others were variously occupied during the times when he could have discovered and used them? Were you able to discern all nine distinct timelines and which Abes and Aarons were permanent and which ones weren't?
But if you say that, that means you are too stupid to follow it
Anyone who claims to follow and understand all of the timelines as they happen on the first viewing is either a liar or a savant.
Someone should have told them that character development isn't just talking about a character, but trying to get the audience to connect with the character. It was just bad.
Let's see you do better with a $10,000 budget.
Anyone remember Steve Jackson Games? They released a game where one of the roles you could play was a computer hacker. The FBI called it a "handbook for computer crime" and the "anarchist's cookbook of cybercrime". No charges were ever filed. It was a work of fiction.
The game you mention is the pen and paper rpg, GURPS Cyberpunk. The credits page still touts the "unsolicited comments of the United States Secret Service" as a selling point.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them. It's their free decision
Indeed it is, but I question the wisdom of their priorities. The mid 20s and early 30s are critical to the future financial and career success of the budding young professional. Maximizing savings during these early years maximizes the long term returns from compounding interest and investment growth. If income goes instead to higher healthcare premiums and taxes during these critical years, as seems likely during the second Obama term and going forward, it hurts young people much more than someone already in their 40s or 50s encountering these higher costs for the first time. Many young people aren't financially literate enough to see this and by the time they do figure it out, they will have already missed their best chances to retire as millionaires. Life is easier when you're younger, but age and infirmity catch up with us all so it's far better to have substantial private savings than to rely upon the self serving promises of elected officials who will all be dead and gone by the time we're left holding the empty bag. So if skillful management of private savings and the exercise of sound financial judgement is zealotry then I suppose that I'm a zealot, but who would you rather be when you retire? Rich Uncle Pennybags or your broke second cousin who still lives paycheck to paycheck at age 50?
One of the Democrat's huge advantages last election was that they apparently could hire competent software development teams.
Or maybe they were just fortunate that it all fell together. Somehow I doubt that these software developers were getting full freight for their services. No, they donated their time and expertise because they liked Obama and wanted to see him reelected. I doubt that they care much about the DNC or would be willing to come back and do it again for Joe Biden or Hillary, should she choose to run in 2016. On the other hand, I find it fascinating that so many of my fellow software professionals supported Obama. Do they not see that they, being amongst the upper middle class, will be some of the first ones hurt by higher taxes and health care costs? The US tax code is especially unfriendly to young, single and well paid professionals which is precisely the group that many of us fall into. The poor are subsidized and the rich don't care so it's always the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, that's hurt most by the sorts of tax and spend policies favored by Obama. College students can be forgiven for being useful idiots, but we professionals ought to have known better. I cannot help but think that those of us who voted again for Obama were voting with their hearts and not their heads.
Is it a water heater?
Are you serious? I know of no US state where employers can't fire you at any time without reason.
In the United States, At-will employment is the rule, not the exception, and although it's not absolute, the burden of proof for the limited exceptions generally falls upon the terminated employees. As you might imagine, few sue and fewer still win their cases when they do. Ask any American who's worked recently and they will tell you that being laid off on short notice or fired on the spot and escorted out of the building does indeed happen and isn't all that uncommon. It's not like Europe or other places where laws protect workers from these practices, albeit with different sets of costs to society.
This is just a harrassment lawsuit.
GM will squash them. They're a politically favored company with good connections in Washington whereas Meg Whitman was a failed Republican candidate for Governorship of California. HP will not win a legal battle with a newly reconstituted and politically favored GM.
You can bet serious money that GM had its lawyers look very carefully at the employee contracts, at least for the 18 leaders (or the most important of them). Not to say they might not lose in court, but I am sure that GM thinks the contracts allow for this.
GM is also the recent beneficiary of substantial US Government patronage in the form of generous "bankruptcy" terms and efforts on their behalf to promote the sales of electric hybrid vehicles with tax rebates, not to mention the fact that the US Treasury is still a major shareholder in GM. Furthermore, GM also just agreed to a very generous contract with a union that has the ear of the most labor friendly President in recent memory. If GM wanted to go "political" with this, they very definitely could. HP should quit while they're still ahead or at least not too far behind.
I'd like to respectfully disagree about insulting HP for this.
The management at HP has failed both the stockholders and the workers. They aren't worthy of respect.
When you're trimming a department, you sometimes have contractual obligations that require you to retain _some_ of the department or group, to support existing services.
That's not my problem, you deal with it.
When they all leave en masse, it can put a very large hole in your infrastructure
Well cry me a river.
when someone leaving poaches from their former group, it's usually a contract violation, written into the contract _precisely_ to protect assets a company has invested in and built up over time.
That's a load of bull. What part of "employment at will" don't you understand? The laws in "at will" states are very clear on this point: either party can terminate the agreement at any time without reason or prior notice. The corporations themselves have long since dispensed with any nonsense illusions of "loyalty" and so we workers have learned to be ruthless too. It's their fault that there's no loyalty anymore, so I say turnabout's fair play, "contract" (which is unenforceable anyway) be damned.
I've been involved, numerous times, in cleaning up after that kind of loss of personnel. The loss of institutional knowledge can be devastating
Maybe the company should have considered that before they went to war with their employees.
there may be no one left who knows _why_ things were done certain ways, and it can really endanger ongoing services and other contracts to lose that much of a key department without some kind of plan.
You mean somebody moved your cheese?
there are few things as devastating to the surviving remnant, who may believe in what they do or may really need the job to feed their families and keep medical insurance
These days it's every man for himself and his family. Make no apologies for that and have no illusions of "loyalty". The corporations look out for numero uno, so must we.
when the "elite few" depart and leave them holding the undocumented remnants of their work.
A perfect opportunity to rewrite everything the "right" way. If the company cannot afford to do that, then maybe it shouldn't continue operating (and likely won't anyway).
And if I ever do a departure interview with one such departing member of a horde who says "there is no documentation, just read the code!" I'm going to warn the staff who organize bids for my company that our hourly rates need to double, and explain why.
I never do exit interviews, nothing good ever comes of them.
So what exactly?
We're so expert and skilled that the bad guys will surrender immediately rather than face our gun kata?
Yup, harshest place in the world.
Perhaps, but isn't there something good to be said of making it in a tough place?
we would rather believe that you can do anything if you put your mind to it.
While that's generally true, in a manner of speaking, it says nothing about the amount of time or effort required nor the quality of the finished work. Could I improve my non-existent quarterback skills with hundreds or even thousands of hours of dedicated and determined practice? Probably. Would I ever approach anything like the level of play demonstrated each week by Payton Manning and other professionals? Not a chance, not even close. People should focus on improving skill at which they have some natural talent or predisposition rather than expending tremendous effort for marginal improvements in areas where they have no special ability. Incidentally, this is why the "everyone must attend college" mantra is just nuts and doubly so when the one considers the tremendous costs of sending marginal students off to college on the public dime. Unfortunately, these sorts of reasonable cost benefit analyses are frequently subordinated to politics, or "optics" as the politicians and their fellow travelers are fond of saying, when it comes to educating our children or spending the public's money. We judge policies based upon their intentions, rather than their results, and that is our great mistake.
A policy must be judged by its results, not it's intentions. I'll concede that we haven't yet seen the full effects of ObamaCare, but in general the record of government policy as cost savings is mixed at best (and that's being very generous to the pro-government side). In my opinion, the only way to fully realize the necessary efficiency and cost savings in health care is to introduce market competition and the best way to do that is by eliminating the tax deduction on employer provided insurance and allowing people to choose whatever insurance plan suits them best, regardless of which company offers it or where they're incorporated. ObamaCare does neither of these things and so will fail to get at the heart of the problem which is too much third party pay in health care. If you're truly willing to hear an honest alternative argument on health care, one that's rarely heard anymore above the din of the left and the entrenched interests, then I challenge you to read: How to Cure Health Care and to watch Living Within our Means. At the very least you'll read and hear about policies and ideas that are worthy of an intelligent person with an open mind.
I'm still paying more every year for health care, so where's the "change" that ObamaCare promised? If past experience is anything to go by here, it's very likely that I will end up paying even more in the future. Say what you want about your neighbor, she can defend herself, but not everyone who opposed ObamaCare is stupid or ignorant of the facts. I'm staring at the "facts" every time I balance my accounts. So I ask you, what good is expensive insurance that covers less and which fewer providers accept? What do you suppose will happen to the quality of care under those conditions? What happens when the subsidy for low income people falls short and increasing numbers of middle class Americans end up with no insurance, in violation of the mandate, and are instead assessed the penalty? We shall see what happens, but better quality care and cost savings are not likely based upon what I've seen so far. The whole cost savings argument, especially coming from the left, pears to be a smokescreen designed to conceal their true intent which was always and everywhere increased wealth transfer from those who work and earn to those who don't. So don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. ObamaCare isn't going to save me any money.
but this can have a negative affect on a lot more people. In fact if it were to have a negative affect it will likely be on those without guns.
This would be a perfect response to the dingbats who made compiled this data set and released it to the public. Invert the logic and highlight those areas with low gun ownership and for even more fun, correlate that with average household income in the highlighted areas. Turnabout's fair play right?
Put E-15 in your '69 Mustang and you're just stupid.
Most gas station owners don't want to and aren't going to install separate underground tanks for E15 fuel. They'd have to install pump blending equipment that blends the fuels as they're pumped. So when the last person at the pump bought E15, there's still up to 1/3 gallon of E15 in the hose which means that your next E10 fillup is going to have about 11+% ethanol, at least for the first gallon or so. This might not be such a big deal if you're filling up your SUV, but its a huge deal if you're putting a gallon in your motorcycle or your two gallon can for use in your lawnmower. So now stations that offer E15 have to enforce a 4 gallon minimum purchase on ALL other blends of gasoline sold from the same pump. Can you think of a way to make this any less attractive for the average gas station owner? I will tell you right now that independent station owners won't offer E15 voluntarily. Almost nobody want's it and it forces expensive equipment upgrades and unpopular policies on other motorists (the 4 gallon minimum). It's time for the oil companies and gas station operators to tell the corn lobby to go stuff themselves.
Although it's not in vogue here on Slashdot, many vehicle owners do actually RTM and it generally states quite clearly in the fuel requirements section that use of fuels other than specified, generally 87-95 octane unleaded gasoline with not more than 10% ethanol, voids the warranty . Now I ask you, when faced with a warning sticker on the E15 gas pump about engine damage, what would the average consumer do? This will become like the E85 pumps. Most stations won't even offer it, because almost nobody wants it, and those that do will see very little use. If a product is so great that the government has to make use of alternatives illegal, it's time to throw the bums out. To all you politicians out there, you want to make people really hopping MAD? Damage the engines on their 10 year old cars during the slowest economic recovery from the deepest recession since WWII and see what happens. Go ahead, we dare you.
I don't think you need to provide details of medical treatments to the government, or request government permission in advance to be allowed the treatment.
Give it a few more years; ObamaCare is just getting started and they've saved the best for last.