The enormous cloud of smug hovering over the EU has reached epic proportions, especially with the latest paternalistic back patting over the US "finally moving past our racial problems". Apparently the cloud is so thick they can't even see Africa or Central Asia, where people are STILL dealing with the fruits of European colonialism and rapacity.
Europe invented the term schadenfreude and are living it up now - hope they don't mind when others start laughing at THEIR misfortune.
"yes. But as a former member of the military I still cant figure out why a ban on assault weapons owned by civilians is bad?"
Let me turn the question around - why would keeping semi-automatic rifles with a flash supressor or 20 round mag or pistol grip be good? It doesn't stop crime - the passage and lapse of the "assault weapons ban" without a measurable affect on crime shows that.
If I want to blow away a target 30x without reloading, why is that a problem? If I want to keep it in my gun cabinet and stare at it, why do you care?
but groups like the nra seem more intent on allowing free and clear access to submachine guns.
That's a lie and you either know it or are swallowing the Brady campaign whole. Find me ANYWHERE where the NRA says that is their policy.
guns perhaps should continue to be owned, but regulated, restricted, licensed. its just common sense. and if you oppose this simple common sense concept, you're helping to lose the argument for gun ownership rights, by being an extremist idiot
Ahh, yes - commonsense gun control. Like National ID cards are just "common sense". Or "traffic shaping" the way Comcast and ATT want it. Or CCTV cameras all over the place. Or "This gun is OK but this one isn't, even though they are the same gun - just one is more scary looking.
If sense were common, why are there so many idiots in the world?
you enjoy posting on the internet. good for you. i don't enjoy pedophiles trading child porn. and for that reason, i have no problem taking away your toys. deal with it, child
Words have killed far more people than guns ever have, and you, Mr. Slashdot User, are just as connected to child pornographers as legitimate gun owners are connected to criminals - they use the same tool.
Despite the perceived snipe at the Bush Administration, per NPR the Obama transition effort is designed to avoid the mistakes from the 1992 Clinton transition, widely regarded as the worst in history.
But there's another aspect of this that points to Obama learning from the Clintons. Bill Clinton was excellent at using the public to apply very specific pressure to Congress and others on various issues. But he tended to mobilize it only when needed. For instance, he fought his impeachment not legally, but politically - he took his case to the public and got them to call their Congresscritters and complain. But he also got caught flat-footed when he didn't prepare the public properly - witness the National Health Care fiasco.
Obama seems to be attempting to keep that mobilized public together as a cohesive force. If he can keep his organization intact, he will have a powerful weapon to force through his agenda - picture all those campaign phone banks turned toward, say, getting the Assault Weapons Ban reinstated.
But the real question is whether that group is an army or a mob. A mob will all pull in one direction, for a time, generally for a short term goal. But once that goal is achieved they tend to do unpredictable things - ask the French Revolutionaries. Likewise Mussolini; he was a great leader - until his own people strung him up on a lamp post.
If Obama can transform the disparate groups that supported him into a coherent, persistent force, he will be unstoppable. I don't think that will happen, though.
Does anyone out there still believe the made up religious fanatic terrorist fundamentalist threat pretext any more? I don't know about you, it's pretty obvious to me that that threat was just made up by the US/UK/Australian governments as an excuse to carry out the biggest power grab in history.
Don't mix the whole "9/11 Truth" bullshit with legitimate criticisms of the power grab that's happening. One can criticize the current politicians without getting into super-Machiavellian conspiracy theories.
"I am convinced that if Al-Qaeda was a real threat, we would see far more bus/subway bombings. "
Not necessarily. There is a theory that the reason why there have not been any more attacks is that the real die-hard jihadists have flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that the proposition is essentially unproveable. In that way it"s similar to the question of Mutually Assured Destruction - did it actually work to keep us out of nuclear war, or did we stay out of one for other reasons?
Yeah, how dare Craigslist charge money! I mean, it's not like one of the most visited sites in the world has bandwidth bills. Or employees. Or legal fees. Or offices.
"You also need to define what you mean by "real participation,"
What he means is "If I can't make it say what I want it to, that means I am being excluded from the process." It's similar to the folks that discover that democracy in the US is "broken" - after their candidate loses.
"MANY Boomers didn't have negative or severe negative consequences and had a delightful time. When you don't have negative consequence from chemical recreation and fucking, there is every reason to remember those times with happy nostalgia, so we do."
More power to you. But do you have kids? Have you told them what a great time you had, and you strongly recommend it?
Someone else made the point about "clinic based care", so I won't address that. But your analysis stops too soon. The plan you detail will ultimately result in LESS total available healthcare, and there's evidence to prove it.
You base a lot of the benefits on the windfall from squeezing inefficiencies out of the system. Well, the HMO's have already done that. They were able to offer health plans at a lower cost than traditional plans because they squeezed a lot of the fluff out of the system. But guess what - it was a one time thing. So when profits started to feel the squeeze, they had 2 choices - increase premiums or cut expenses. And now everybody loathes HMO's because they ration care and are such penny pinchers.
Now, translate that to nationalized healthcare. First there is the big slug of savings. My taxes increase, but not as much as my insurance premium decreases, so I receive a benefit. But now time goes by, and the Gov't. needs more money, so they cut the fees they pay doctors (already happens with Medicare). So now doctors need to take on more patients and work longer hours, and some of them bail. They aren't replaced, because people don't want to go into the field. Hospitals close because their reimbursements don't cover expenses. And we're right back to where we started - rationing. Now, healthcare is rationed by cost - if the doctor won't get paid, he won't give the care. Under your plan, rationing will be by availability - the doctor is booked solid for a month, and when you get there he has only 10 minutes for you - sound familiar?
The funny thing is, I agree with your assertion that we will move toward nationalized health care. I simply disagree that it's automatically a good idea.
"He. While you're on the subject of the constitution, there is nothing in there giving people the right to carry arms nor to go out into the middle of nowhere and blow away some innocent animals. It talks about an armed and controlled militia and nothing else."
Sigh. I already HAVE that right, as a result of being human. I also HAVE the rights to freedom of speech, etc - the Constitution doesn't "grant" me those rights. It is supposed to limit the Government from trampling those rights.
Read Heller - the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. If you don't like the reasoning behind the decision, you must loathe Roe V. Wade.
I understand what the joke was, and it was very clever. I simply chose to answer the implied challenge, which was that I was presenting a false choice and that we CAN have all three. Fine. Show me.
No, I believe his point was that we CAN have all three, and that I was postulating a false choice. This is typically encountered when there are only 2 options, and is known as a false dichotomy.
Lets say for instance that I limited the options to Unlimited Access and Universal coverage, and said that you could not have both. That WOULD be a false dichotomy, because we CAN have both - it would simply cost a shitload of money.
We WANT all three. I propose that we can't HAVE all three, but our politicians and populace refuse to recognize this, so we don't have any of them. If anyone can show me a reasonable plan (aside from Mr. "Top 2%" above) that will get us all three, I'm all ears.
It's the healthcare policy equivalent of "Time,Quality,Cost: Pick any 2". I hear this invoked in discussions about programming projects all the time. Is healthcare somehow immune to real world economics?
Um. I want healthcare? I'm talking about the people that DIE because the insurance companies deny healthcare to people who cannot foot the bill of an expensive procedure and ask the insurance companies for help.
Yes, I want healthcare. So do you right? But that's a pipedream to you? That one day when you NEED healthcare or you die... That's what I mean.
But that wasn't what you said. You said
"Take all, richest 2% all foot the bill."
That implies that you want unlimited coverage, for everybody, at zero cost but for the top 2%. That shows a naivety level worthy of a precocious 3 year old, and I responded accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, I posted so I can't mod you up.
The enormous cloud of smug hovering over the EU has reached epic proportions, especially with the latest paternalistic back patting over the US "finally moving past our racial problems". Apparently the cloud is so thick they can't even see Africa or Central Asia, where people are STILL dealing with the fruits of European colonialism and rapacity.
Europe invented the term schadenfreude and are living it up now - hope they don't mind when others start laughing at THEIR misfortune.
"Why is it "very bad" to ban assault weapons?"
Because you are taking some things away from me for no good reason - my property, and my rights.
Tell you what - I'll trade my SKS for your internet connection. My Second Amendment rights for your First? Deal?
Didn't think so.
"yes. But as a former member of the military I still cant figure out why a ban on assault weapons owned by civilians is bad?"
Let me turn the question around - why would keeping semi-automatic rifles with a flash supressor or 20 round mag or pistol grip be good? It doesn't stop crime - the passage and lapse of the "assault weapons ban" without a measurable affect on crime shows that.
If I want to blow away a target 30x without reloading, why is that a problem? If I want to keep it in my gun cabinet and stare at it, why do you care?
That's a lie and you either know it or are swallowing the Brady campaign whole. Find me ANYWHERE where the NRA says that is their policy.
Ahh, yes - commonsense gun control. Like National ID cards are just "common sense". Or "traffic shaping" the way Comcast and ATT want it. Or CCTV cameras all over the place. Or "This gun is OK but this one isn't, even though they are the same gun - just one is more scary looking.
If sense were common, why are there so many idiots in the world?
Words have killed far more people than guns ever have, and you, Mr. Slashdot User, are just as connected to child pornographers as legitimate gun owners are connected to criminals - they use the same tool.
It's a lot scarier when applied to you, isn't it?
"It has been a long time since that has happend."
Despite the perceived snipe at the Bush Administration, per NPR the Obama transition effort is designed to avoid the mistakes from the 1992 Clinton transition, widely regarded as the worst in history.
But there's another aspect of this that points to Obama learning from the Clintons. Bill Clinton was excellent at using the public to apply very specific pressure to Congress and others on various issues. But he tended to mobilize it only when needed. For instance, he fought his impeachment not legally, but politically - he took his case to the public and got them to call their Congresscritters and complain. But he also got caught flat-footed when he didn't prepare the public properly - witness the National Health Care fiasco.
Obama seems to be attempting to keep that mobilized public together as a cohesive force. If he can keep his organization intact, he will have a powerful weapon to force through his agenda - picture all those campaign phone banks turned toward, say, getting the Assault Weapons Ban reinstated.
But the real question is whether that group is an army or a mob. A mob will all pull in one direction, for a time, generally for a short term goal. But once that goal is achieved they tend to do unpredictable things - ask the French Revolutionaries. Likewise Mussolini; he was a great leader - until his own people strung him up on a lamp post.
If Obama can transform the disparate groups that supported him into a coherent, persistent force, he will be unstoppable. I don't think that will happen, though.
Don't mix the whole "9/11 Truth" bullshit with legitimate criticisms of the power grab that's happening. One can criticize the current politicians without getting into super-Machiavellian conspiracy theories.
"I am convinced that if Al-Qaeda was a real threat, we would see far more bus/subway bombings. "
Not necessarily. There is a theory that the reason why there have not been any more attacks is that the real die-hard jihadists have flocked to Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem is that the proposition is essentially unproveable. In that way it"s similar to the question of Mutually Assured Destruction - did it actually work to keep us out of nuclear war, or did we stay out of one for other reasons?
Yeah, how dare Craigslist charge money! I mean, it's not like one of the most visited sites in the world has bandwidth bills. Or employees. Or legal fees. Or offices.
Greedy bastards.
"Ultimately they are banking on MUCH larger uses in the future. But their business model is not exactly profitable."
Let's see...
1) Undercut competitors
2) Pick up competitors business after they go tits up
3) Jack up prices after gainng dominant market share.
4) PROFIT!
Standard Oil SOP.
"The NY Times had an interesting story last week about creatures that dine on blood."
Given that it's the political season, aren't MOST of their stories about bloodsuckers?
I dunno - seasonal flu kills thousands, and there's not a whole lot of humor in vomiting and diarrhea.
Unless you are into that sort of thing.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I swear, half of Slashdot is secretly hoping McCain wins, because if he loses, they won't have anything to post.
"That's a detail that seems to be missing from most vampire movies."
I'm sure Ann Rice covered watersports somewhere in her books.
"Or just make all the women look like Kate Beckinsale. Being bitten on the neck is a small price to pay for my wife having that body."
Yeah, but you also get made into her slave and enter into a life of servitude...oh, wait...
HEY - my wife's a lawyer! How dare you compare her to a bloodsucking...
Nevermind.
"You also need to define what you mean by "real participation,"
What he means is "If I can't make it say what I want it to, that means I am being excluded from the process." It's similar to the folks that discover that democracy in the US is "broken" - after their candidate loses.
"MANY Boomers didn't have negative or severe negative consequences and had a delightful time. When you don't have negative consequence from chemical recreation and fucking, there is every reason to remember those times with happy nostalgia, so we do."
More power to you. But do you have kids? Have you told them what a great time you had, and you strongly recommend it?
Vista: The Windows ME of the NT codebase.
Someone else made the point about "clinic based care", so I won't address that. But your analysis stops too soon. The plan you detail will ultimately result in LESS total available healthcare, and there's evidence to prove it.
You base a lot of the benefits on the windfall from squeezing inefficiencies out of the system. Well, the HMO's have already done that. They were able to offer health plans at a lower cost than traditional plans because they squeezed a lot of the fluff out of the system. But guess what - it was a one time thing. So when profits started to feel the squeeze, they had 2 choices - increase premiums or cut expenses. And now everybody loathes HMO's because they ration care and are such penny pinchers.
Now, translate that to nationalized healthcare. First there is the big slug of savings. My taxes increase, but not as much as my insurance premium decreases, so I receive a benefit. But now time goes by, and the Gov't. needs more money, so they cut the fees they pay doctors (already happens with Medicare). So now doctors need to take on more patients and work longer hours, and some of them bail. They aren't replaced, because people don't want to go into the field. Hospitals close because their reimbursements don't cover expenses. And we're right back to where we started - rationing. Now, healthcare is rationed by cost - if the doctor won't get paid, he won't give the care. Under your plan, rationing will be by availability - the doctor is booked solid for a month, and when you get there he has only 10 minutes for you - sound familiar?
The funny thing is, I agree with your assertion that we will move toward nationalized health care. I simply disagree that it's automatically a good idea.
"He. While you're on the subject of the constitution, there is nothing in there giving people the right to carry arms nor to go out into the middle of nowhere and blow away some innocent animals. It talks about an armed and controlled militia and nothing else."
Sigh. I already HAVE that right, as a result of being human. I also HAVE the rights to freedom of speech, etc - the Constitution doesn't "grant" me those rights. It is supposed to limit the Government from trampling those rights.
Read Heller - the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. If you don't like the reasoning behind the decision, you must loathe Roe V. Wade.
"Ubuntu Outperforms Vista" is like saying "Ford Pinto Outperforms Amish Carriage"
I dunno - I think you get MUCH better results when you rear-end a buggy.
I understand what the joke was, and it was very clever. I simply chose to answer the implied challenge, which was that I was presenting a false choice and that we CAN have all three. Fine. Show me.
No, I believe his point was that we CAN have all three, and that I was postulating a false choice. This is typically encountered when there are only 2 options, and is known as a false dichotomy.
Lets say for instance that I limited the options to Unlimited Access and Universal coverage, and said that you could not have both. That WOULD be a false dichotomy, because we CAN have both - it would simply cost a shitload of money.
We WANT all three. I propose that we can't HAVE all three, but our politicians and populace refuse to recognize this, so we don't have any of them. If anyone can show me a reasonable plan (aside from Mr. "Top 2%" above) that will get us all three, I'm all ears.
It's the healthcare policy equivalent of "Time,Quality,Cost: Pick any 2". I hear this invoked in discussions about programming projects all the time. Is healthcare somehow immune to real world economics?
But that wasn't what you said. You said
That implies that you want unlimited coverage, for everybody, at zero cost but for the top 2%. That shows a naivety level worthy of a precocious 3 year old, and I responded accordingly.