- If you like your doctor, you can keep him
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
What he didn't say at the time because it was a very very basic assumption was that if your doctor/plan MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS of the ACA you can keep them.
Those minimum things are what the ACA was about. If a plan doesn't meet the ACA then no it shouldn't have been allowed to continue. It was the entire point of the legislation, to get a bare minimum of reasonable insurance to people. Not 'catastrophic only' coverage cheapo plans that existed previously because those same people simply were left to die by the insurance companies.
Basically he just wants to teach 'facts'. Which is effectively just teaching history. Which conveniently he'll substitute his own political version of history for the recruits...I mean kids...to learn.
Climate change *is* settled. It's basic physics and thermodynamics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're adding copious amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. This WILL increase the temperature of a system. And amazingly enough we are seeing temperatures go up.
Now, if you want to prove why this won't cause warming, please do. But me thinks you (and anybody else since they haven't) simply can't.
Are there finer details of the process that aren't yet understood? Sure. That doesn't negate the overall theory and overwhelming body of evidence that supports the theory. Just saying 'its normal, nothing to see here' isn't credible when you see significant changes.
The question for Twitter is not, "should we censor"; they do that every day when they stop people distributing wares and malware through their system. The question is "should we give resources to help these people who have a very clear bad aim"
The content of the links Twitter is taking down isn't on or hosted by Twitter and aren't being tweeted by the terrorists. They are being tweeted by regular Twitter users. As such, pulling those links *is* censorship. As I've said, don't force the content down people's throats with auto play but simply require an active action for it to be played. Then it's completely in the hands of the user as to whether they view the material or not.
the hiatus? that scientists now think is being caused by heat being sent to the deep oceans? where we're now seeing significantly increased methane seeps?
you simply can't stop information on the internet. You can try but you will fail. If the trolls want to do such things, it says more about them than it does about anything else.
I'm all in favor of requiring an active action to view the video. Rather than Twitter taking down links, just modify them to require a click before it plays so people who don't want to see it aren't forced to experience it. But blocking it? simply won't work.
Increase the speed limits? Then there will be idiots driving even faster.
Yes there will. Simply changing the rules without adequate training after decades of an undesirable behavior isn't going to change said behavior overnight.
Trying to change a systemic behavior in a system as vast and (in the US) as untrained as the driving public isn't a small undertaking.
there's this thing called 'software' that can, amazingly enough, use different configuration data based on a physical location. Or did you think Google Search was only in American English everywhere?
That said, this magical thing called 'software' can also be hacked to do things that aren't intended by the developers so it's not a panacea, but it will still be a far bit better than humans at following the rules of the road as conveyed to it - even through the normal posted speed limit signs.
the major threat to Iceland is the flooding. Sure its airspace will be affected but if you're house is being washed away that's a significantly more pressing and dangerous issue.
Europe on the other hand is at no risk from the flooding. So the threat to air travel in Europe, based on the 2010 experience, is significant.
Add to that the factor that European air travel is probably orders of magnitude greater than Iceland's...
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Your pension wasn't created the day before you died and then pays out for 10 years afterwards. It was created over 20-30 years with the money you already earned (you get paid a bit less so the pension is funded).
And just like you, the author's works can provide for his family after death, assuming he's been investing his money into retirement/life insurance. But a one hit wonder who kicks the bucket the next day? That 'pension' is going to be might small...
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Then the 'author' should have bought life insurance or he was a lousy author and we aren't in the business of rewarding that. Copyright isn't about paying for relatives, it's about incentivizing the creator to create more works by giving a reasonable return. If you're dead you can't produce any more so there's no incentive that can work.
fringe cases like this are the bastion of trolls.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 2
You know what industry thrives on rampant copying and 'intellectual' 'theft'? Fashion. No copyrights, no patents and it's a veritable bonanza of creativity. And of course knock offs that look almost as good as the originals. Knock offs which actually drive more purchases of the originals. People can purchase a knock off today and later when they have the ability, they still want the brand name.
So, no, you don't need copyright to have robust creativity and rewards for that creativity.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
sometimes the person who invents something and patents it, simply isn't able to properly take it to the next level. It would seem unfair to prevent them from selling their patent to a company and thus receiving compensation for their 'invention', no?
Obviously, some companies will be your patent trolls, but others do take their purchased patents and market them. There isn't any 'best' solution for this because stopping one too much causes the other to be affected too.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
you've already missed the point. If copyright/patents are meant to encourage people to create, granting them rights after they are dead is utterly useless.
40 years is also way way way to long. 10 would be a lot more reasonable. If you can't monetize your work in that amount, maybe you aren't that good at what you're doing. Besides, for music, people are still going to see the original artist play their music, not a cover band given the choice.
small comfort, but people whose biometrics are hacked would be the perfect cyber criminals no? I mean, you can't tie those bio-metrics to just 'them' anymore right?
I'm not missing the forest through the trees. He is in Russia specifically because the US revoked his passport. The OP called that blatantly false and you agree that it's blatantly true.
Could Russia do something to 'unstick' the situation? Sure, but that's entirely a different. The current situation was created because of the US; that Russia could do something to resolve it isn't Snowden's fault nor does it change the fact that the US started this.
The OP blatantly said that it was false that Snowden was in Russia because of the US. Yet you agree with me that, yes the reason Snowden got stuck in Russia was the US's fault.
COULD Russia issue him a passport? I find that perhaps possible but very unlikely, but that's sort of irrelevant to how and why he got stuck there - which you agree was the US's doing.
seriously do read up on how things happened. Snowden got stuck in the Moscow airport expressly because his passport was no longer valid. Countries don't just let people in on flights without one of those. He had already booked flights to Central America but couldn't board the flights without a valid passport.
And most countries check you BEFORE you board so that you aren't able to actually get there without it.
So yes, the State Dept revoking Snowden's passport is exactly why he was living in the Moscow airport for a short time until Russia decided to grant him asylum; I'd guess for no small reason that Russia is downright reveling in sticking it to the US by doing so.
But if you think countries go around issuing their national passports to just anybody...I'm not sure we can have rational discussion.
He's only in Russia BECAUSE of the US. He didn't choose to stay there. Restore his passport and he'll quite happily leave Russia.
And he's not 'lending aid' to any foreign governments. Nobody has any proof of that. Which also supports his case that he didn't do this for 'espionage' or to 'harm' the US. The US Government is already harming itself, he just told us about it.
actually, no he wouldn't get a fair trial. He's not allowed to present much of what would be his case. Motive is a perfectly reasonable thing to enter into the record. Except he won't be allowed to do so. Even Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers thinks so.
Slashdot Mirror
- If you like your doctor, you can keep him
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
What he didn't say at the time because it was a very very basic assumption was that if your doctor/plan MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS of the ACA you can keep them.
Those minimum things are what the ACA was about. If a plan doesn't meet the ACA then no it shouldn't have been allowed to continue. It was the entire point of the legislation, to get a bare minimum of reasonable insurance to people. Not 'catastrophic only' coverage cheapo plans that existed previously because those same people simply were left to die by the insurance companies.
Basically he just wants to teach 'facts'. Which is effectively just teaching history. Which conveniently he'll substitute his own political version of history for the recruits...I mean kids...to learn.
We know for a fact that it is warming the oceans.
We know for a fact we are seeing more methane seeps in places that it is warming and in places we didn't seem them before.
We know for a fact that increasing the temps around methane hydrates will cause them to release.
We know for a fact that more methane in the atmosphere will increase temperatures.
While you might not be able to explicitly prove it just yet, the signs are clearly there that we're treading on pretty thin ice.
Climate change *is* settled. It's basic physics and thermodynamics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We're adding copious amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. This WILL increase the temperature of a system. And amazingly enough we are seeing temperatures go up.
Now, if you want to prove why this won't cause warming, please do. But me thinks you (and anybody else since they haven't) simply can't.
Are there finer details of the process that aren't yet understood? Sure. That doesn't negate the overall theory and overwhelming body of evidence that supports the theory. Just saying 'its normal, nothing to see here' isn't credible when you see significant changes.
I do love how you're now decrying the very hiatus other deniers are using to decry climate change.
The science is settled but you can continue tilting at windmills.
The question for Twitter is not, "should we censor"; they do that every day when they stop people distributing wares and malware through their system. The question is "should we give resources to help these people who have a very clear bad aim"
The content of the links Twitter is taking down isn't on or hosted by Twitter and aren't being tweeted by the terrorists. They are being tweeted by regular Twitter users. As such, pulling those links *is* censorship. As I've said, don't force the content down people's throats with auto play but simply require an active action for it to be played. Then it's completely in the hands of the user as to whether they view the material or not.
The VERY NEXT SENTENCE:
He is more interested in what will happen as the world warms. “It becomes interesting only if you have a catastrophic release,” he says.
emphasis mine. i.e. it's slow now but if temps go up it becomes catastrophic.
the hiatus? that scientists now think is being caused by heat being sent to the deep oceans? where we're now seeing significantly increased methane seeps?
you simply can't stop information on the internet. You can try but you will fail. If the trolls want to do such things, it says more about them than it does about anything else.
I'm all in favor of requiring an active action to view the video. Rather than Twitter taking down links, just modify them to require a click before it plays so people who don't want to see it aren't forced to experience it. But blocking it? simply won't work.
Increase the speed limits? Then there will be idiots driving even faster.
Yes there will. Simply changing the rules without adequate training after decades of an undesirable behavior isn't going to change said behavior overnight.
Trying to change a systemic behavior in a system as vast and (in the US) as untrained as the driving public isn't a small undertaking.
there's this thing called 'software' that can, amazingly enough, use different configuration data based on a physical location. Or did you think Google Search was only in American English everywhere?
That said, this magical thing called 'software' can also be hacked to do things that aren't intended by the developers so it's not a panacea, but it will still be a far bit better than humans at following the rules of the road as conveyed to it - even through the normal posted speed limit signs.
nuke it from orbit. it's the only way to be sure :)
the major threat to Iceland is the flooding. Sure its airspace will be affected but if you're house is being washed away that's a significantly more pressing and dangerous issue.
Europe on the other hand is at no risk from the flooding. So the threat to air travel in Europe, based on the 2010 experience, is significant.
Add to that the factor that European air travel is probably orders of magnitude greater than Iceland's...
Your pension wasn't created the day before you died and then pays out for 10 years afterwards. It was created over 20-30 years with the money you already earned (you get paid a bit less so the pension is funded).
And just like you, the author's works can provide for his family after death, assuming he's been investing his money into retirement/life insurance. But a one hit wonder who kicks the bucket the next day? That 'pension' is going to be might small...
Then the 'author' should have bought life insurance or he was a lousy author and we aren't in the business of rewarding that. Copyright isn't about paying for relatives, it's about incentivizing the creator to create more works by giving a reasonable return. If you're dead you can't produce any more so there's no incentive that can work.
fringe cases like this are the bastion of trolls.
You know what industry thrives on rampant copying and 'intellectual' 'theft'? Fashion. No copyrights, no patents and it's a veritable bonanza of creativity. And of course knock offs that look almost as good as the originals. Knock offs which actually drive more purchases of the originals. People can purchase a knock off today and later when they have the ability, they still want the brand name.
So, no, you don't need copyright to have robust creativity and rewards for that creativity.
sometimes the person who invents something and patents it, simply isn't able to properly take it to the next level. It would seem unfair to prevent them from selling their patent to a company and thus receiving compensation for their 'invention', no?
Obviously, some companies will be your patent trolls, but others do take their purchased patents and market them. There isn't any 'best' solution for this because stopping one too much causes the other to be affected too.
you've already missed the point. If copyright/patents are meant to encourage people to create, granting them rights after they are dead is utterly useless.
40 years is also way way way to long. 10 would be a lot more reasonable. If you can't monetize your work in that amount, maybe you aren't that good at what you're doing. Besides, for music, people are still going to see the original artist play their music, not a cover band given the choice.
small comfort, but people whose biometrics are hacked would be the perfect cyber criminals no? I mean, you can't tie those bio-metrics to just 'them' anymore right?
excuse me, I need to go take a red pill...
I'm not missing the forest through the trees. He is in Russia specifically because the US revoked his passport. The OP called that blatantly false and you agree that it's blatantly true.
Could Russia do something to 'unstick' the situation? Sure, but that's entirely a different. The current situation was created because of the US; that Russia could do something to resolve it isn't Snowden's fault nor does it change the fact that the US started this.
The OP blatantly said that it was false that Snowden was in Russia because of the US. Yet you agree with me that, yes the reason Snowden got stuck in Russia was the US's fault.
COULD Russia issue him a passport? I find that perhaps possible but very unlikely, but that's sort of irrelevant to how and why he got stuck there - which you agree was the US's doing.
seriously do read up on how things happened. Snowden got stuck in the Moscow airport expressly because his passport was no longer valid. Countries don't just let people in on flights without one of those. He had already booked flights to Central America but couldn't board the flights without a valid passport.
And most countries check you BEFORE you board so that you aren't able to actually get there without it.
So yes, the State Dept revoking Snowden's passport is exactly why he was living in the Moscow airport for a short time until Russia decided to grant him asylum; I'd guess for no small reason that Russia is downright reveling in sticking it to the US by doing so.
But if you think countries go around issuing their national passports to just anybody...I'm not sure we can have rational discussion.
He's only in Russia BECAUSE of the US. He didn't choose to stay there. Restore his passport and he'll quite happily leave Russia.
And he's not 'lending aid' to any foreign governments. Nobody has any proof of that. Which also supports his case that he didn't do this for 'espionage' or to 'harm' the US. The US Government is already harming itself, he just told us about it.
actually, no he wouldn't get a fair trial. He's not allowed to present much of what would be his case. Motive is a perfectly reasonable thing to enter into the record. Except he won't be allowed to do so. Even Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers thinks so.
yeah...and Snowden couldn't get a fair trial here...so he'd do that why?