See, the truth is, I never had a 1541. It had so many problems, I chose to get the MSD Super Disk, which was faster, more reliable, but wouldn't load copy protected disks. I ended up pirating EA games after I bought them because they wouldn't load.
You're not looking deep enough. How many unnecessary procedures are performed because the patient thinks he needs it and the doctor, who knows there is a 99% chance he doesn't need it, is nonetheless worried that that 1% chance could bankrupt him?
I don't know, can you tell me? Also, can you tell me how many times that patient has indeed hit the 1% scenario and been right? And what's the value that saving that 1 life out of 100? Is it worth doing the procedure in question 99 extra times just to be sure?
So many people freaked out about the supposed "death panels" in the public plan, when really they already exist. Insurance providers build statistics charts that determine what they'll cover, and doctor's decisions about what's absolutely necessary are as much about what they'll get paid for as they are about whether or not they'll be sued. It's a pity that what's actually good for the patient seems to come a distant third.
Instead focus singly on the FLOOD of people coming in from fairly weak borders with Mexico and Canada,
I can't speak to Mexico, but in Canada, they've got great public health care. I know a lot of Canadians, and they don't understand this debate; many of them would never consider living here solely because of the crappy health care.
just as it's necessary to arrest people for possession of cocaine
Then I guess we should also put some measures in the health care bill to ensure that people who have ever possessed cocaine can not get free health care?
Totally true. The right-wingers are complaining both that the public plan would be terrible, and that it would put the private plans out of business. I can't imagine, in an even slightly free-market scenario, that both could be true. Either it will be competitive or it won't be.
Actually, you're wrong; I'm not a racist. My point was to separate the argument with regards to undocumented immigrants getting health care from the health care debate. I think it's a separate issue and should be handled separately.
That being said, according to current law, anyone here who is not here legally is indeed committing a crime. I'm in the camp that decriminalizing immigration by streamlining the processes for living here legally--for work or toward the goal of becoming a citizen--is a good thing. But regardless of what should be, the law does indeed make undocumented immigration illegal until those laws are changed.
Oh, come on. Aren't we techies? We could do random colors each time. Or let the visitor decide.
But yes, anyone who feels like abortions should not be legal even in the case of rape or danger to the woman's life is, in my book, a nut job. You don't have to agree; you can even think that I'm a nut job, but you'd be wrong.
Illegal aliens: This is a non-issue, made up to inflame the ignorant. The right way to deal with illegal aliens is through immigration law reform.
Streamlining the payment process: I thought that 40 years of private industry handling this--y'know, competition--would have solved this! If you think there was resistance to the bill as it is, imagine what it would have been like if Congress had told private companies how to change their business processes.
Denying coverage: Thank you Republicans.
Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.
It could have been so much better: True, but the opposition mob has been focused on stopping any change, and they're a loud and angry bunch.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Or maybe he took care of it with his famous razor.
Interesting to note, USA, Sweden, and North Korea have something in common. I've leave the exercise for the viewer to figure out what that is.
And the anti-abortion set apparently think that even Afghanistan is too liberal a country. Without even looking at the rest of the site, the color scheme tells me that this list is compiled by nut jobs. I find it amazing that Angola and Egypt get yellow flags for allowing abortion if the woman's life is in danger only--respectively--in the first trimester or if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
El Salvador, Malta and Vatican City, however, all get green flags across the board.
And apparently, after they're born, they remain human their whole lives. When is the "death penalty" OK?
Hate to be "off" the "off topic", but I figure if we're looking for controversy...
Have you seen the "don't steal movies" PSAs at the beginning of DVDs? They're ridiculous. They highlight the poor stuntmen and key grips who go hungry because people steal movies, while the studio execs drive Ferrarris and snort coke off their secretaries' bosoms.
It's disingenuous at best. Just like when the COO of a company which has been granted amazing regional monopolies, and which fights tooth and nail to retain those monopolies, says that they don't care what the consumer wants.
His statements wouldn't be a problem for me if there were true competition in this realm. But as it is, Comcast controls the video pipes for their entire regions. And they typically control 50% of the data pipes to consumers (regional bell DSL or FIOS, but not both, typically being offered as the other half of a regional duopoly).
And if you want to get your video content from another source over their data pipes, they want to throttle you unless you or the vendor you're going to pays a premium. And if you can get around that, well, then they establish exclusive distribution deals so that you can only get your content from them.
Don't forget, copyright laws were intentionally written to ensure that more content ends up in the public domain. That's not how it's working out, and it's clear from this guy's statements that he is only interested in the aspects of copyright law that let him wring every last penny out of consumers.
There's nothing illegal about what he's saying, but it's definitely motivated by greed, and that's one of the 7 deadly sins, IIRC.
my understanding is that they anonymize any logs that are not to be kept associated with any particular account. I don't know all the details, but they are apparently thorough enough that it's caused some consternation with some courts who have tried to subpoena logs as evidence, only to find that they couldn't get anything useful.
I don't have a link, but my recollection is that when their process was challenged (anonymizing after 30 days), they not only defended their right to do so, but also shortened the period to 15 days or some such.
"Recall" doesn't mean that they take the whole car back. It means you get a notice to come into the dealership, they fix what's wrong--i.e. replacing the overly-aggressive floor mats--and you take it away later that day. Only serious, serious recalls mean the owner giving up the car.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a terabyte sized binary blob, you insensitive clod!
Sarah Positions? She sounds hot.
it's print media going "OMFG I'M DYING HELP.Me.be.relevant.agggghhhhhh...." You actually made me LOL with that.
Really? She used to be a guy? Oh. Sorry, I misread where that dash went.
See, the truth is, I never had a 1541. It had so many problems, I chose to get the MSD Super Disk, which was faster, more reliable, but wouldn't load copy protected disks. I ended up pirating EA games after I bought them because they wouldn't load.
Nor copy it, I imagine. Though I like your version better.
Sorry, my snarky "Einstein" comment was meant to be a joke. Wasn't very funny, though, was it. I promise I'll be better next time.
You're not looking deep enough. How many unnecessary procedures are performed because the patient thinks he needs it and the doctor, who knows there is a 99% chance he doesn't need it, is nonetheless worried that that 1% chance could bankrupt him?
I don't know, can you tell me? Also, can you tell me how many times that patient has indeed hit the 1% scenario and been right? And what's the value that saving that 1 life out of 100? Is it worth doing the procedure in question 99 extra times just to be sure?
So many people freaked out about the supposed "death panels" in the public plan, when really they already exist. Insurance providers build statistics charts that determine what they'll cover, and doctor's decisions about what's absolutely necessary are as much about what they'll get paid for as they are about whether or not they'll be sued. It's a pity that what's actually good for the patient seems to come a distant third.
Instead focus singly on the FLOOD of people coming in from fairly weak borders with Mexico and Canada,
I can't speak to Mexico, but in Canada, they've got great public health care. I know a lot of Canadians, and they don't understand this debate; many of them would never consider living here solely because of the crappy health care.
just as it's necessary to arrest people for possession of cocaine
Then I guess we should also put some measures in the health care bill to ensure that people who have ever possessed cocaine can not get free health care?
Totally true. The right-wingers are complaining both that the public plan would be terrible, and that it would put the private plans out of business. I can't imagine, in an even slightly free-market scenario, that both could be true. Either it will be competitive or it won't be.
Actually, you're wrong; I'm not a racist. My point was to separate the argument with regards to undocumented immigrants getting health care from the health care debate. I think it's a separate issue and should be handled separately.
That being said, according to current law, anyone here who is not here legally is indeed committing a crime. I'm in the camp that decriminalizing immigration by streamlining the processes for living here legally--for work or toward the goal of becoming a citizen--is a good thing. But regardless of what should be, the law does indeed make undocumented immigration illegal until those laws are changed.
Oh, come on. Aren't we techies? We could do random colors each time. Or let the visitor decide.
But yes, anyone who feels like abortions should not be legal even in the case of rape or danger to the woman's life is, in my book, a nut job. You don't have to agree; you can even think that I'm a nut job, but you'd be wrong.
Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I was wrong, but that's what I was thinking of.
That's the beauty of it, and it was a requirement. Anyone who likes and can afford their current plan is also exempt!
Illegal aliens: This is a non-issue, made up to inflame the ignorant. The right way to deal with illegal aliens is through immigration law reform.
Streamlining the payment process: I thought that 40 years of private industry handling this--y'know, competition--would have solved this! If you think there was resistance to the bill as it is, imagine what it would have been like if Congress had told private companies how to change their business processes.
Denying coverage: Thank you Republicans.
Tort reform: Whatever. This accounts for a teeny, tiny portion of health care costs. It's highlighted by right-wingers, but you could eliminate all unjust lawsuits and you'd be saving pennies.
It could have been so much better: True, but the opposition mob has been focused on stopping any change, and they're a loud and angry bunch.
MMmm..... Yearrrrling buuuuuuuck.
Yes, and it's clearly just because the penalty is meted out even-handedly and fairly across all ethnic and socio-economic groups.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning. Or maybe he took care of it with his famous razor.
Interesting to note, USA, Sweden, and North Korea have something in common. I've leave the exercise for the viewer to figure out what that is.
And the anti-abortion set apparently think that even Afghanistan is too liberal a country. Without even looking at the rest of the site, the color scheme tells me that this list is compiled by nut jobs. I find it amazing that Angola and Egypt get yellow flags for allowing abortion if the woman's life is in danger only--respectively--in the first trimester or if the pregnancy is the result of rape.
El Salvador, Malta and Vatican City, however, all get green flags across the board.
And apparently, after they're born, they remain human their whole lives. When is the "death penalty" OK? Hate to be "off" the "off topic", but I figure if we're looking for controversy...
Have you seen the "don't steal movies" PSAs at the beginning of DVDs? They're ridiculous. They highlight the poor stuntmen and key grips who go hungry because people steal movies, while the studio execs drive Ferrarris and snort coke off their secretaries' bosoms.
It's disingenuous at best. Just like when the COO of a company which has been granted amazing regional monopolies, and which fights tooth and nail to retain those monopolies, says that they don't care what the consumer wants.
His statements wouldn't be a problem for me if there were true competition in this realm. But as it is, Comcast controls the video pipes for their entire regions. And they typically control 50% of the data pipes to consumers (regional bell DSL or FIOS, but not both, typically being offered as the other half of a regional duopoly).
And if you want to get your video content from another source over their data pipes, they want to throttle you unless you or the vendor you're going to pays a premium. And if you can get around that, well, then they establish exclusive distribution deals so that you can only get your content from them.
Don't forget, copyright laws were intentionally written to ensure that more content ends up in the public domain. That's not how it's working out, and it's clear from this guy's statements that he is only interested in the aspects of copyright law that let him wring every last penny out of consumers.
There's nothing illegal about what he's saying, but it's definitely motivated by greed, and that's one of the 7 deadly sins, IIRC.
my understanding is that they anonymize any logs that are not to be kept associated with any particular account. I don't know all the details, but they are apparently thorough enough that it's caused some consternation with some courts who have tried to subpoena logs as evidence, only to find that they couldn't get anything useful.
I don't have a link, but my recollection is that when their process was challenged (anonymizing after 30 days), they not only defended their right to do so, but also shortened the period to 15 days or some such.
"Recall" doesn't mean that they take the whole car back. It means you get a notice to come into the dealership, they fix what's wrong--i.e. replacing the overly-aggressive floor mats--and you take it away later that day. Only serious, serious recalls mean the owner giving up the car.
Maybe your tires are just low on air.