being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is)
If people could sue each other for being an asshole, we'd need a few dozen more cable channels to cover around-the-clock showings of "The People's Court" and "Judge Judy".
This is why we have congress and the courts, to block unchecked expansion of power.
You mean how the Congress's FISA act, and the FISA court, blocked Bush's warrantless wiretapping of US citizens?
The Wiretapping capabilities, and email scanning capabilities... neither are the inventions of this president.
The capabilities are not the problem. The problem is using those capabilities outside the law.
The only positive point of this president is that he's done great things for the economy,
What color is the sky on the planet you live on? By "great things", do you mean make modest improvements to the toilet he drove the economy into? Have you checked out what he did to the national debt? His predecessor was paying down the debt with a bugetary surplus. The biggest fiscal dispute at the time was whether the entire US debt should be paid off over 7 years or over 10 years. And at that time, I was paying 99 cents for a gallon of gas, and the unemployment rate was the lowest it had been in 25 years. What in God's name are you talking about?
With lower tax and medical bills more people would be able to afford insurance.
You can lower tax by fiat, but where are the lower medical bills coming from again? Also, the GP was talking about homeless people. They are probably not paying much, if any, taxes right now, so this would not likely enable them to afford health insurance. (And that's also assuming that these homeless people can afford a mailbox at Mailboxes Etc to have their insurance cards and EOB forms mailed to, as well as a cell phone for talking to the insurance company's customer service representatives when something goes wrong. Perhaps this is a common thing for homeless people on whatever planet you live on.)
BTW, can someone from the cutting-taxes-solves-all-problems camp tell me what they think is the appropriate level of taxation? Will there ever be a point at which you'll say, "ok, that's enough tax cuts, we've got too much work to do that gov't (including military) needs to do, and we're going too far into debt"? Or should we keep cutting taxes down to zero?
For those who couldn't work or get work civil society would be able to help out more as more people could donate to these organizations with lower tax bills.
And why should we have to hope that this need gets satisfied via charitable donations? Why should the homeless have to hope that people are feeling particularly charitable this year? I don't hear anyone saying that the military, or NASA, or the CDC, or the NSF (etc.) should stop being publicly funded and should start soliciting charitable contributions.
And I am saying this as someone who collects SSI.
Oh. So....... you're a hypocrite. I get it. Thanks.
Get rid of the state sponsored crap, let people choose their own insurance providers, let people deal with the consequences of their choices,
Huh? I don't get it. If you want to take personal responsibility for your choices, then you don't need insurance, right? If you get cancer, pay for it all out of your pocket. Why should other insured people pay for your cigarette smoking with their insurance premiums?
I think they've got the wrong idea here. How about making it legal to shoot the robo-deer, and only the robo-deer. It would serve as an outlet for all those guys who actually derive pleasure out of depriving a defenseless animal of his life.
Yes, and you also have the power to kill people, to steal, to vandalize, and do anything else you wish to do. Of course, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you have the legal right to do it.
The best analogy I can think of is GM saying you can only put 'genuine GM' parts in their cars.
Actually, a better analogy is GM making their oil filters in the shape of the GM logo. If you make an oil filter that fits in a GM, you have to make it in the shape of their logo, thereby violating their trademark.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean Dave Thomas. The restaurant chain was named after his daughter.
Ethiopians are the healthiest people in the world because they see the fewest number of health care professionals.
Why not let the market take care of it?
Because Adam Smith is being legislatively handcuffed.
For a cup of hot tea?
The 90's??? The 1990's??? The decade in which MS stock went from sixty cents a share to sixty dollars a share? Those 90's?
Just take the scenic route... through Europe.
I want five megawatts. By mid-may.
I want five megawatts by mid-May.
Either that, or it's a sign that Yogi Berra is alive and submitting Slashdot stories.
They'd have been charged with child molestation.
Sarcasm can be insightful. (So can pointing out what qualifies as insightful... Mods take note. :))
being an asshole (NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, even if 2 centuries of practice make most american think it is)
If people could sue each other for being an asshole, we'd need a few dozen more cable channels to cover around-the-clock showings of "The People's Court" and "Judge Judy".
File!!... Exit!!!... No!!!
... when you can simply use bad grammar and word usage in your slashdot-post subject lines?
It's not an "idiot use". It's a valid use.
No, I meant "straw man" in the second sense.
You say that, but in what follows you make it clear that you are not using it in that second, correct, sense.
I think folks have been tricked into arguing for net neutrality as a distraction from arguing for common carrier principles.
Then the term you are looking for is "red herring".
This is why we have congress and the courts, to block unchecked expansion of power.
You mean how the Congress's FISA act, and the FISA court, blocked Bush's warrantless wiretapping of US citizens?
The Wiretapping capabilities, and email scanning capabilities... neither are the inventions of this president.
The capabilities are not the problem. The problem is using those capabilities outside the law.
The only positive point of this president is that he's done great things for the economy,
What color is the sky on the planet you live on? By "great things", do you mean make modest improvements to the toilet he drove the economy into? Have you checked out what he did to the national debt? His predecessor was paying down the debt with a bugetary surplus. The biggest fiscal dispute at the time was whether the entire US debt should be paid off over 7 years or over 10 years. And at that time, I was paying 99 cents for a gallon of gas, and the unemployment rate was the lowest it had been in 25 years. What in God's name are you talking about?
With lower tax and medical bills more people would be able to afford insurance.
You can lower tax by fiat, but where are the lower medical bills coming from again? Also, the GP was talking about homeless people. They are probably not paying much, if any, taxes right now, so this would not likely enable them to afford health insurance. (And that's also assuming that these homeless people can afford a mailbox at Mailboxes Etc to have their insurance cards and EOB forms mailed to, as well as a cell phone for talking to the insurance company's customer service representatives when something goes wrong. Perhaps this is a common thing for homeless people on whatever planet you live on.)
BTW, can someone from the cutting-taxes-solves-all-problems camp tell me what they think is the appropriate level of taxation? Will there ever be a point at which you'll say, "ok, that's enough tax cuts, we've got too much work to do that gov't (including military) needs to do, and we're going too far into debt"? Or should we keep cutting taxes down to zero?
For those who couldn't work or get work civil society would be able to help out more as more people could donate to these organizations with lower tax bills.
And why should we have to hope that this need gets satisfied via charitable donations? Why should the homeless have to hope that people are feeling particularly charitable this year? I don't hear anyone saying that the military, or NASA, or the CDC, or the NSF (etc.) should stop being publicly funded and should start soliciting charitable contributions.
And I am saying this as someone who collects SSI.
Oh. So....... you're a hypocrite. I get it. Thanks.
Get rid of the state sponsored crap, let people choose their own insurance providers, let people deal with the consequences of their choices,
Huh? I don't get it. If you want to take personal responsibility for your choices, then you don't need insurance, right? If you get cancer, pay for it all out of your pocket. Why should other insured people pay for your cigarette smoking with their insurance premiums?
This would've been a hilarious segment on "Candid Camera".
I think they've got the wrong idea here. How about making it legal to shoot the robo-deer, and only the robo-deer. It would serve as an outlet for all those guys who actually derive pleasure out of depriving a defenseless animal of his life.
Yes, and you also have the power to kill people, to steal, to vandalize, and do anything else you wish to do. Of course, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you have the legal right to do it.
The best analogy I can think of is GM saying you can only put 'genuine GM' parts in their cars.
Actually, a better analogy is GM making their oil filters in the shape of the GM logo. If you make an oil filter that fits in a GM, you have to make it in the shape of their logo, thereby violating their trademark.
Is that 300 billion dollars, or 300 billion cents?
This would work quite well so long as your server is locked in a room where two sysadmins need to turn their keys simultaneously to get in.