The example given is an insurance company that already targets religious organizations. If there are no nuns on the pill, then you won't be paying for a service you don't use. The question is whether the rights of the person to have choice outweigh the rights of the corporation to order all employees how to behave in their private time. You've made your stance clear.
Looking at places with single payer, it looks like you are wrong. There are generally thriving public and private systems side-by-side, with cooperation and lower total costs than the system we had before or now, where insurance companies take 10-15% off the top, and another 10-15% goes to insurance and things that are not needed when single-payer is run by the government. Trim out the 30-50% market inefficiencies in health care, and you have a much cheaper solution with better care. That should have been the goal, not the subsidies for insurance companies we ended up with.
As employers, they are being told to pay for something they believe is morally wrong.
As employers, they are paying for it now. God apparently allows them to pay immoral people who use their wages to get health care, but God doesn't allow them to pay for a health plan that would allow them to get that same health care. Seems an odd position for God to take.
But then, logic and religion are orthogonal, so there doesn't need to be a connection. The rights of the person outweigh the rights of the "organization". An organization can't go to hell, so religious arguments don't seem to apply.
In complete agreement with what I said. Take care with volatile compounds. They didn't take sufficient care. There was documented negligence (no idea if it was prosecuted, but your link made it clear it existed).
So, in the case of complications that will likely kill the mother and baby upon birth, you'd kill both, rather than the baby so that the mother can live and maybe try again (so long as the problem is not commonly recurring)?
In short, the government has decided that you must provide a service you believe is immoral.
Good. It was a good thing when the government came down on people doing the "moral thing" and hanging black people who married whites. It was a good thing when the government forced shop owners to immorally serve blacks and whites at the same counter and with the same toilets.
Anytime the government mandates that people do something they believe is immoral, I believe the law should be very carefully examined. Do I agree with their opinion of what is immoral? No. But this is a question of how free our society is, and specifically whether the government has the authority to force an organization to go against their religious beliefs.
Ah, "religious beliefs". So the government should abolish some things, but not others, depending on people's religious beliefs? That sounds less like religious freedom and more like oppression by the religious (so long as they get sufficient representation to force the rest of us to follow them).
Whether you agree with Religion A or not, the important question is whether the government should have the authority to tell you what you must do even if you believe it is immoral. Flip the argument around and you're asking whether the government has the right to demand that you tithe to the Roman Catholic church regardless of what you believe. If they have the right to demand you do one thing against your beliefs, then they have the right to do others. The seperation of church and state was supposed to keep the government from dictating what activity you must participate in. Are you sure you want a government that has decided to ignore that separation?
The separation was quite literal at the time, as many nations had state religions, and a number of the early settlers fled to the US to avoid state churches, so they were banned from setting up their own state church. The government forces you to enroll your children in school, even if your church makes that immoral. The government forces you to care for your children adequately, even if your church makes that immoral. The government does all sorts of things now that at least some churches find "immoral" Having clear, consistent and fair laws is more important than whether some church asserts that something is immoral. I think the real issue is that the church-only health care organizations are scared that if they cover nuns and priests for pregnancies, they'll have claims. The problem isn't that it's immoral, but that it'd be embarrassing. So they claim "immoral" for something that, if their religious adherents adhered to, would never happen (if nobody on the plan gets birth control, then the plan *isn't* forced to pay for birth control). It's only immoral when someone within the church acts immorally, and that's not under the control of the government. The government isn't making it immoral, the members of the church are.
One of the two of us doesn't understand insurance. If an insurance company has 10 insured people, and none of them get treated for a broken bone, how much of the premiums paid goes towards treating broken bones? Being required to cover it, and actually paying for it are unrelated.
Obviously, because the file run was not the default autorun file, the default autorun was not utilized. Some mechanism was enabled that deliberately (not by default) loaded that file.
Again, just because you don't understand the truth doesn't make reality wrong.
The government is forcing someone to buy the pills. The summary makes it sound like it's all nuns and priests, but there are secretaries and accountants working for these organizations. And if one of them is on the health plan, and wants the pill, then the health plan will be paying for the pills, so, the argument is that, by proxy, the priests and nuns are paying for the pills through their premiums.
In practice, people work where they believe, if there are strong divisions, so I'd guess the number of members of CBEBT who are on the pill to be small. But there have been no numbers released for that, so we can't know. Probably because the only people who could release the numbers would have their arguments harmed by the release of them.
Petitioning doesn't guarantee a favorable outcome. They did petition. They were denied. I'm still confused as to what the problem is. They want to refuse to pay for the pill, if any covered member requests it. As the summary hints the coverage covers nuns and priests, it seems more like they don't want to know if any nuns or priests's wives are on the pill. How could it affect them if they were required by law to pay for something requested if nobody ever requests it?
How many members of the CBRBT currently are on the pill? If it's not zero, it's close enough to not be different than if they decided they wanted to ban paying for all medication from Pfizer or such because they make the pill. Putting ideology above medical care is always a bad idea.
The details were light in that list, but the ones I could find details about looked to all be "petroleum products" and not a single one was listed as crude. The "lesson" from that is don't put pipelines with expensive products in poor areas, and be careful with the more volatile compounds.
liar. Windoes did, but doesn't anymore. The story is irrelevant to calling little liars on their little lies. Stop lying, and I'll stop pointing them out,.
He didn't sell anything to anyone. But if he did, then he is a profiteering villain. So the insinuation that he did what he did for purely selfish reasons (the only reasons Conservatives understand) helps cast him in a negative light. And anything negative is a good thing.
As for inheritance, I am talking strictly about wealth. Not income, but assets.
As that transfers (usually) after top education is achieved, "wealth" seems to have little correlation with achievement. You inherit genes, and just as wealth is an acquired inheritance, so is a work ethic and belief in the value of education. It is common in English to refer to a variety of traits as "inherited". I presume you are not a native speaker, based on your selective and unusual definition of "inheritance".
But yes, I've seen the effect you mention. Students try to fit in. So, the "pressure" on their peers to achieve (or not) will affect them. I agree with your inference that the average (likely weighted) of parents and peers parents is a better predictor than wealth.
When you deliberately read for the least probable and least useful reading of everything, it won't make much sense. I explained it, and you refuse to listen.
And someone that understands Windows (as it is the most common in the world), is a bad thing, but someone who is deliberately ignorant is a better authority on that which they avoid? You are the only incoherent one here. You lied about Windows features, then get all grumpy when called on it.
So you accept that I proved you wrong? I proved you wrong, and I predicted you wouldn't concede. Oh look. I was right. So what was your point again? That you are wrong, so you change the subject every chance you get?
We (as taxpayers) paid them millions to hurt people. That you don't see a distinction indicates some childhood trauma. Did your mother hate you, or just drop you a lot?
I've always read that parent's "success" determines the success of the children more than IQ. Especially in the USA. I've read that there's more movement between classes in India, which still has a class system, than the US, where there is no class system. Maybe you mean something different than inheritance, but if your parent's education correlates strongly with yours, and education correlates strongly with success (wealth not considered), I'd still consider that "inheritance."
Paris Hilton would have been nobody, if not for who her parents were.
How is it even relevant that recent versions of Windows don't do it? Obviously they didn't run a recent version, and honestly, that'd be just as bad.
You condemned an OS, not a version. That makes you wrong. You might as well be condemning Ford quality, not for current or recent problems, but because the 1940's Flatheads were problem prone.
Plus, given that the listed file run isn't one that has ever been a default for the OS indicates it is a configuration issue, not an OS issue.
But then, you seem more interested in spreading lies to insult an OS you don't like than looking at the actual issue and evaluating it.
Besides, even if you're very proficient in using Windows, you don't know shit about OS concepts. Feel free to prove me wrong.
You say that like there is some way I could "prove you wrong". I can't. You hold an incorrect opinion. And those are the ones that never change. I can't prove your opinion wrong. If I were to try, you'd pull out confirmation bias and such to ignore anything you don't like, just as you did when I pointed out that Windows does not act in the manner you describe (though at least one previous version did, your tense did not lend itself to that meaning), so the fact you have contradicted yourself already in respect to "Windows does it" rather than "windows did it" *by default* is proof you are wrong.
Now that I've proven you wrong, what do I win? An apology? Or abuse where you insult me further because I state a truth you don't like, rather than agreeing with your (trivially provable and proven) false opinion? I'm guessing abuse, as that's what you have done so far, so why should I prove I know shit about OS concepts, when you've proven yourself unable to acknowledge a correction of your incorrect opinion?
That close to a base, and digging and other things prohibited, who's to say someone didn't make something nefarious that looked like poo? Though, for consistency's sake, all littering, including failure to pick up poo, should be treated in a similar manner.
33% believe species don't evolve. 33% believe species evolve, not by "natural selection" but by "intelligent design" And 33% believe in evolution. I think your overly optimistic observation is overly optimistic.
I know they can. I've done it. Someone complaining about your system automatically doing what you programmed it to would be as stupid as the comment I was replying to. The file run wasn't "autorun" so it was a manually configured run, not an automatic one. So complaints about "automatic" are mostly red herrings by anti-windows fanatics.
Slashdot Mirror
The example given is an insurance company that already targets religious organizations. If there are no nuns on the pill, then you won't be paying for a service you don't use. The question is whether the rights of the person to have choice outweigh the rights of the corporation to order all employees how to behave in their private time. You've made your stance clear.
Looking at places with single payer, it looks like you are wrong. There are generally thriving public and private systems side-by-side, with cooperation and lower total costs than the system we had before or now, where insurance companies take 10-15% off the top, and another 10-15% goes to insurance and things that are not needed when single-payer is run by the government. Trim out the 30-50% market inefficiencies in health care, and you have a much cheaper solution with better care. That should have been the goal, not the subsidies for insurance companies we ended up with.
As employers, they are being told to pay for something they believe is morally wrong.
As employers, they are paying for it now. God apparently allows them to pay immoral people who use their wages to get health care, but God doesn't allow them to pay for a health plan that would allow them to get that same health care. Seems an odd position for God to take.
But then, logic and religion are orthogonal, so there doesn't need to be a connection. The rights of the person outweigh the rights of the "organization". An organization can't go to hell, so religious arguments don't seem to apply.
In complete agreement with what I said. Take care with volatile compounds. They didn't take sufficient care. There was documented negligence (no idea if it was prosecuted, but your link made it clear it existed).
So, in the case of complications that will likely kill the mother and baby upon birth, you'd kill both, rather than the baby so that the mother can live and maybe try again (so long as the problem is not commonly recurring)?
In short, the government has decided that you must provide a service you believe is immoral.
Good. It was a good thing when the government came down on people doing the "moral thing" and hanging black people who married whites. It was a good thing when the government forced shop owners to immorally serve blacks and whites at the same counter and with the same toilets.
Anytime the government mandates that people do something they believe is immoral, I believe the law should be very carefully examined. Do I agree with their opinion of what is immoral? No. But this is a question of how free our society is, and specifically whether the government has the authority to force an organization to go against their religious beliefs.
Ah, "religious beliefs". So the government should abolish some things, but not others, depending on people's religious beliefs? That sounds less like religious freedom and more like oppression by the religious (so long as they get sufficient representation to force the rest of us to follow them).
Whether you agree with Religion A or not, the important question is whether the government should have the authority to tell you what you must do even if you believe it is immoral. Flip the argument around and you're asking whether the government has the right to demand that you tithe to the Roman Catholic church regardless of what you believe. If they have the right to demand you do one thing against your beliefs, then they have the right to do others. The seperation of church and state was supposed to keep the government from dictating what activity you must participate in. Are you sure you want a government that has decided to ignore that separation?
The separation was quite literal at the time, as many nations had state religions, and a number of the early settlers fled to the US to avoid state churches, so they were banned from setting up their own state church. The government forces you to enroll your children in school, even if your church makes that immoral. The government forces you to care for your children adequately, even if your church makes that immoral. The government does all sorts of things now that at least some churches find "immoral" Having clear, consistent and fair laws is more important than whether some church asserts that something is immoral. I think the real issue is that the church-only health care organizations are scared that if they cover nuns and priests for pregnancies, they'll have claims. The problem isn't that it's immoral, but that it'd be embarrassing. So they claim "immoral" for something that, if their religious adherents adhered to, would never happen (if nobody on the plan gets birth control, then the plan *isn't* forced to pay for birth control). It's only immoral when someone within the church acts immorally, and that's not under the control of the government. The government isn't making it immoral, the members of the church are.
One of the two of us doesn't understand insurance. If an insurance company has 10 insured people, and none of them get treated for a broken bone, how much of the premiums paid goes towards treating broken bones? Being required to cover it, and actually paying for it are unrelated.
Obviously, because the file run was not the default autorun file, the default autorun was not utilized. Some mechanism was enabled that deliberately (not by default) loaded that file.
Again, just because you don't understand the truth doesn't make reality wrong.
The government is forcing someone to buy the pills. The summary makes it sound like it's all nuns and priests, but there are secretaries and accountants working for these organizations. And if one of them is on the health plan, and wants the pill, then the health plan will be paying for the pills, so, the argument is that, by proxy, the priests and nuns are paying for the pills through their premiums.
In practice, people work where they believe, if there are strong divisions, so I'd guess the number of members of CBEBT who are on the pill to be small. But there have been no numbers released for that, so we can't know. Probably because the only people who could release the numbers would have their arguments harmed by the release of them.
Petitioning doesn't guarantee a favorable outcome. They did petition. They were denied. I'm still confused as to what the problem is. They want to refuse to pay for the pill, if any covered member requests it. As the summary hints the coverage covers nuns and priests, it seems more like they don't want to know if any nuns or priests's wives are on the pill. How could it affect them if they were required by law to pay for something requested if nobody ever requests it?
How many members of the CBRBT currently are on the pill? If it's not zero, it's close enough to not be different than if they decided they wanted to ban paying for all medication from Pfizer or such because they make the pill. Putting ideology above medical care is always a bad idea.
The details were light in that list, but the ones I could find details about looked to all be "petroleum products" and not a single one was listed as crude. The "lesson" from that is don't put pipelines with expensive products in poor areas, and be careful with the more volatile compounds.
198.6.1.3
NS1 for the former great UUNET. No idea who runs it now after the MCI buyout and possible transfers since, but it's never let me down.
"windows does it *by default*"
liar. Windoes did, but doesn't anymore. The story is irrelevant to calling little liars on their little lies. Stop lying, and I'll stop pointing them out,.
He didn't sell anything to anyone. But if he did, then he is a profiteering villain. So the insinuation that he did what he did for purely selfish reasons (the only reasons Conservatives understand) helps cast him in a negative light. And anything negative is a good thing.
As for inheritance, I am talking strictly about wealth. Not income, but assets.
As that transfers (usually) after top education is achieved, "wealth" seems to have little correlation with achievement. You inherit genes, and just as wealth is an acquired inheritance, so is a work ethic and belief in the value of education. It is common in English to refer to a variety of traits as "inherited". I presume you are not a native speaker, based on your selective and unusual definition of "inheritance".
But yes, I've seen the effect you mention. Students try to fit in. So, the "pressure" on their peers to achieve (or not) will affect them. I agree with your inference that the average (likely weighted) of parents and peers parents is a better predictor than wealth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility has some cites on the low mobility in the USA.
When you deliberately read for the least probable and least useful reading of everything, it won't make much sense. I explained it, and you refuse to listen.
And someone that understands Windows (as it is the most common in the world), is a bad thing, but someone who is deliberately ignorant is a better authority on that which they avoid? You are the only incoherent one here. You lied about Windows features, then get all grumpy when called on it.
So you accept that I proved you wrong? I proved you wrong, and I predicted you wouldn't concede. Oh look. I was right. So what was your point again? That you are wrong, so you change the subject every chance you get?
How would it have affected his severance? Did they mess with people to reduce severance payments?
We (as taxpayers) paid them millions to hurt people. That you don't see a distinction indicates some childhood trauma. Did your mother hate you, or just drop you a lot?
I've always read that parent's "success" determines the success of the children more than IQ. Especially in the USA. I've read that there's more movement between classes in India, which still has a class system, than the US, where there is no class system. Maybe you mean something different than inheritance, but if your parent's education correlates strongly with yours, and education correlates strongly with success (wealth not considered), I'd still consider that "inheritance."
Paris Hilton would have been nobody, if not for who her parents were.
How is it even relevant that recent versions of Windows don't do it? Obviously they didn't run a recent version, and honestly, that'd be just as bad.
You condemned an OS, not a version. That makes you wrong. You might as well be condemning Ford quality, not for current or recent problems, but because the 1940's Flatheads were problem prone.
Plus, given that the listed file run isn't one that has ever been a default for the OS indicates it is a configuration issue, not an OS issue.
But then, you seem more interested in spreading lies to insult an OS you don't like than looking at the actual issue and evaluating it.
Besides, even if you're very proficient in using Windows, you don't know shit about OS concepts. Feel free to prove me wrong.
You say that like there is some way I could "prove you wrong". I can't. You hold an incorrect opinion. And those are the ones that never change. I can't prove your opinion wrong. If I were to try, you'd pull out confirmation bias and such to ignore anything you don't like, just as you did when I pointed out that Windows does not act in the manner you describe (though at least one previous version did, your tense did not lend itself to that meaning), so the fact you have contradicted yourself already in respect to "Windows does it" rather than "windows did it" *by default* is proof you are wrong.
Now that I've proven you wrong, what do I win? An apology? Or abuse where you insult me further because I state a truth you don't like, rather than agreeing with your (trivially provable and proven) false opinion? I'm guessing abuse, as that's what you have done so far, so why should I prove I know shit about OS concepts, when you've proven yourself unable to acknowledge a correction of your incorrect opinion?
That close to a base, and digging and other things prohibited, who's to say someone didn't make something nefarious that looked like poo? Though, for consistency's sake, all littering, including failure to pick up poo, should be treated in a similar manner.
33% believe species don't evolve. 33% believe species evolve, not by "natural selection" but by "intelligent design" And 33% believe in evolution. I think your overly optimistic observation is overly optimistic.
I know they can. I've done it. Someone complaining about your system automatically doing what you programmed it to would be as stupid as the comment I was replying to. The file run wasn't "autorun" so it was a manually configured run, not an automatic one. So complaints about "automatic" are mostly red herrings by anti-windows fanatics.
Windows doesn't do it by default, not anymore. Perhaps you should learn about modern OSs before you lecture others on them.