You do not have to completely avoid something to cut back on it. Why not simply avoid sugary drinks and candy? You can't eat a balanced diet and avoid fructose and glucose, the problem is that if you eat if high-fructose corn-syrup by itself in unlimited supply you'll end up eating way too much. It's not some toxic chemical, it's just really easy to eat way too much of it. I don't see why you should bother avoiding it in other food products that your hunger cycle is better at regulating.
Did you happen to notice the last two examples, where he literally deleted a road from a landscape, or later on when he filled the entire outside edge of a picture? That's more than just removing lens-flares.
I appreciate it when people give me charity, and I am happy to help others out when I can. But I don't like it when someone comes to me and says "You have to pay", and I certainly would never say that to someone else.
Many claim that you need to force people to have civilization. If that's true, I'd rather not have it. I'd be happy to die in the street if no one were willing to help me, I'd rather do that than force their help. But I believe that most people would freely help if they could.
I am not a hermit, nor do I desire to live in a vacuum. I have said nothing to that effect, you have said those things. I think I've said enough about my opinions on my own, so I don't understand why you are reading even more into them.
These are my opinions, you are free to disagree with them. You don't need to insult me over them or hypothesize about why I hold them. I mean you no harm.
If I were to walk by someone dying in the street, I would help them. That's my choice. If, as you say, most people would, then there is no reason to compel that behavior through threat of force (even if you do believe that would be acceptable).
so your argument has two logical fallacies:
I made no logical argument in my previous comment. I only stated my opinion. Therefore, it is impossible for me to have committed any logical fallacy.
I desire freedom from compulsion by earthly rulers and other false things, but I love hunger and sickness because they are real. You seem to want to be free from real things but bound by false things. In the end, you will be free of neither, so I think my portion is the better one.
no civilised nation lets hospitals turn away people in critical condition
There is nothing civilized about requiring medical practitioners to administer care.
The illness is awful, and the bankruptcy is a fucking travesty.
By putting in place a system where people do not fall on hard times, you exchanging charitable opportunities for entitlement (you are exchanging gifts for obligations). Furthermore it's bad to shield people from adversity because it prevents them from learning and growing.
You've missed my entire point. You could not have possibly read a single complete sentence from my comment (maybe you just read "I think I can go it alone" then hit "reply"?).
I'm not saying that I think I can go it alone. What I'm saying is that it's not compassionate if you help someone, who didn't ask for it, then demand repayment. It is even less compassionate if you demand payment before they've ever become injured, which is what is going on now. I'd rather live in a society that lets people die in the street (and I don't want that at all) than one that demands they pay for health care.
Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health. Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one). Incidental injuries like the ones you've listed are relatively inexpensive to treat compared to the medical conditions caused by the things I've listed above. The only major exception is cancer, which is often associated with lifestyle too.
I am not a libertarian, but let me ask you:
Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?
As a society, we seem to have lost all respect for other people's boundaries. And to be sure, our boundaries are what define us. That means that we have lost all respect for each other. It is never appropriate to compel or demand that someone do something. We are human beings and we need more respect than that. I am not a beast of burden, I am a human being.
They get more power and control, which is why they love to work those jobs. I'd imagine that it must be pretty cool just write something down or tell someone to do something and see it happen. They must imagine they are capable of anything. They're like gods, really.
It's not my fault that if I injure myself others feel compelled to help me. If I think I can go it alone, who does it hurt? Do you really think it's my responsibility to make sure people like you can live in a society that takes compassion on me without having to pay for it? Why can't you let other people take responsibility for themselves?
I don't want free health care. Now, I have to pay for it. That doesn't seem like a good situation to me.
The question was "How is an iPad more convenient than a laptop?". No one is saying that the iPad does things that have never been done before. What I'm saying is that there is no device on the market like the iPad, and I think it may be more useful for me than a laptop would be (as I said, I have a laptop, but I only use it as a desktop).
I appreciate that you are attacking what you perceive as Apply fanboysim, but that's not what is going on here.
The iPhone's hand gestures are not complex. Most people can use it immediately after picking it up. To "click" on something you touch it. To navigate the screen you drag your finger over it. To zoom in/out you "pinch" the screen with you fingers. Most users have an easier time learning to use this then they had learning to use a mouse.
There are plenty of apps for the iPad, some of them allow you to draw, and iWork will be available for it when it comes out. But yeah, it won't do everything your Tablet does.
A laptop is meant to be used while sitting (preferably at a table or a desk), and it is pretty much useless in any other situation. You can use an iPad while you're holding it, and it only weights a pound and a half. Also, the iPad has a multi-touch interface, which is much more intuitive and usable than a desktop OS in my opinion.
That's not what I got from it at all. What I read was "the iPad is the first potentially viable tablet computing device, and other computer makers need to get with the program so that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the market".
First of all, who said that the iPad is a "convergence" device? It's not meant to replace desktops and laptops (in fact, it requires one!) it's meant to supplement them.
Secondly, broad generalizations rarely make accurate predictions. This argument makes no sense because it makes no real consideration of the merits and potential uses for the device. As long as it fills an unfilled niche, or works better than existing alternatives it will find success.
For example, I currently have a laptop, but is it not convenient enough for me to use it as such (It basically sits at home and waits for me to use it there). I do most of my computing on my iPhone. With the iPad, I will be able to access the internet anywhere, and produce documents on the go. So it may be a good fit for me, and I may be able to sell my macbook and buy a mac mini instead. Of course, I'm going to have to hold one in my hands and play with it for a while before I will be willing to shell out $$$ for one.
Internet search engines are a product, which Google was selling in China. It is trade, and it's nothing like what you've said here. Google has said they won't modify their product to meet China's requirements, China has said "fine, then we don't want 'em" so Google is leaving. Google hasn't done anything wrong, nor have they done anything like what you've described.
Agreed, basic macroeconomics explains this very well. The party paying the tax is determinable only by the supply and demand curves, which fall outside the realm of government control. Where they government takes the money from is really just an accounting trick to hide the true costs from the people who really pay them.
Did you miss the part where a follower of Jesus complains to him that a woman has wasted resources on Jesus that could have been spent on the poor... and Jesus replies that the woman has done the right thing and that the poor will be with us always? Yeah... all those who worship the poor and use the poor as justification for bizarre robin hood schemes seem to miss that one... just a coincidence I'm sure.
BTW, if you aren't aware, you should read this passage in it's context in John:
But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."
This verse always comes to my mind when someone is complaining about how someone else is spending their time and resources. Surely, a selfless person would not be concerned with such matters.
I crushed my finger about a year ago, and I went to the ER to get it sewed up. I gave them my insurance information, at the time, and I asked them how much I would have to pay but they couldn't tell me. I saw one doctor twice, the first time she examined it for a few minutes, the second time she spend about 20 minutes stitching it up. Apart from that, a NP examined it and two x-ray techs came and took an x-ray of it.
2 months later I got a bill for $2,000 (which claimed it was already past-due, though I'd never received an earlier one). I eventually walked them through submitting the claim properly to my insurance company, but not before they offered to "settle" with me for $1,000 (why would I pay that? I have insurance!). To my thinking, neither cost is acceptable for what was in aggregate about one hour of work (but of course they didn't bill me by the hour, they billed me for the procedures: the examination, x-ray, to "close" my finger, and to "repair" the laceration, I was never clear on how those last two are different from each other and they constituted the bulk of the cost)
From what I can tell, medical billing is a completely bogus and filled with inconsistencies and carelessness. On the other hand, the care I received was top-notch, and I have no complaints. The follow up care, as well as the billing for it, was completely painless because the doctor I went to seemed to have his ducks in a row.
Have you ever heard of the WTO? We most certainly can sue them, and not only over this, but also over their labor practices and especially their blatant price fixing. Why don't we? We don't want to lose the trade partner.
It all depends on what is politically possible. If people want a high-speed rail, the politicians will jump on board so they can put their name on it and build their personal empire. If public support is mixed, however, politicians want to avoid the potential stain on their reputation.
It's not like a politician will buck popular opinion and do the "right" thing (which is usually a subjective question anyway). Some do, but they don't last long or go very far. You are giving the leadership in Europe way too much credit. They just do whatever is politically expedient, the same as politicians do in the states. The difference is that people in Europe want high-speed rail and socialized health care, while in the US many people see these things as an unwanted intrusion by the state into their personal affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not have to completely avoid something to cut back on it. Why not simply avoid sugary drinks and candy? You can't eat a balanced diet and avoid fructose and glucose, the problem is that if you eat if high-fructose corn-syrup by itself in unlimited supply you'll end up eating way too much. It's not some toxic chemical, it's just really easy to eat way too much of it. I don't see why you should bother avoiding it in other food products that your hunger cycle is better at regulating.
Did you happen to notice the last two examples, where he literally deleted a road from a landscape, or later on when he filled the entire outside edge of a picture? That's more than just removing lens-flares.
I appreciate it when people give me charity, and I am happy to help others out when I can. But I don't like it when someone comes to me and says "You have to pay", and I certainly would never say that to someone else.
Many claim that you need to force people to have civilization. If that's true, I'd rather not have it. I'd be happy to die in the street if no one were willing to help me, I'd rather do that than force their help. But I believe that most people would freely help if they could.
I am not a hermit, nor do I desire to live in a vacuum. I have said nothing to that effect, you have said those things. I think I've said enough about my opinions on my own, so I don't understand why you are reading even more into them.
These are my opinions, you are free to disagree with them. You don't need to insult me over them or hypothesize about why I hold them. I mean you no harm.
Most wealthy people have these problems, I wasn't even talking about poor people.
If I were to walk by someone dying in the street, I would help them. That's my choice. If, as you say, most people would, then there is no reason to compel that behavior through threat of force (even if you do believe that would be acceptable).
I made no logical argument in my previous comment. I only stated my opinion. Therefore, it is impossible for me to have committed any logical fallacy.
I desire freedom from compulsion by earthly rulers and other false things, but I love hunger and sickness because they are real. You seem to want to be free from real things but bound by false things. In the end, you will be free of neither, so I think my portion is the better one.
There is nothing civilized about requiring medical practitioners to administer care.
By putting in place a system where people do not fall on hard times, you exchanging charitable opportunities for entitlement (you are exchanging gifts for obligations). Furthermore it's bad to shield people from adversity because it prevents them from learning and growing.
I am continually called selfish on this forum by people who have never met me but are literally demanding I pay their bills.
And whatever this is, it's even more expensive. It's true what they say, less is more.
You've missed my entire point. You could not have possibly read a single complete sentence from my comment (maybe you just read "I think I can go it alone" then hit "reply"?).
I'm not saying that I think I can go it alone. What I'm saying is that it's not compassionate if you help someone, who didn't ask for it, then demand repayment. It is even less compassionate if you demand payment before they've ever become injured, which is what is going on now. I'd rather live in a society that lets people die in the street (and I don't want that at all) than one that demands they pay for health care.
Your lifestyle is a huge factor in determining your health. Alcoholism, cigarette addiction, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle are all practically guaranteed to cause health problems later in life (and most Americans do more than one). Incidental injuries like the ones you've listed are relatively inexpensive to treat compared to the medical conditions caused by the things I've listed above. The only major exception is cancer, which is often associated with lifestyle too.
I am not a libertarian, but let me ask you:
Who is more selfish: someone who refuses to pay for your care, or someone who demands that you pay for their care?
As a society, we seem to have lost all respect for other people's boundaries. And to be sure, our boundaries are what define us. That means that we have lost all respect for each other. It is never appropriate to compel or demand that someone do something. We are human beings and we need more respect than that. I am not a beast of burden, I am a human being.
They get more power and control, which is why they love to work those jobs. I'd imagine that it must be pretty cool just write something down or tell someone to do something and see it happen. They must imagine they are capable of anything. They're like gods, really.
It's not my fault that if I injure myself others feel compelled to help me. If I think I can go it alone, who does it hurt? Do you really think it's my responsibility to make sure people like you can live in a society that takes compassion on me without having to pay for it? Why can't you let other people take responsibility for themselves?
I don't want free health care. Now, I have to pay for it. That doesn't seem like a good situation to me.
The question was "How is an iPad more convenient than a laptop?". No one is saying that the iPad does things that have never been done before. What I'm saying is that there is no device on the market like the iPad, and I think it may be more useful for me than a laptop would be (as I said, I have a laptop, but I only use it as a desktop).
I appreciate that you are attacking what you perceive as Apply fanboysim, but that's not what is going on here.
The iPhone's hand gestures are not complex. Most people can use it immediately after picking it up. To "click" on something you touch it. To navigate the screen you drag your finger over it. To zoom in/out you "pinch" the screen with you fingers. Most users have an easier time learning to use this then they had learning to use a mouse.
There are plenty of apps for the iPad, some of them allow you to draw, and iWork will be available for it when it comes out. But yeah, it won't do everything your Tablet does.
A laptop is meant to be used while sitting (preferably at a table or a desk), and it is pretty much useless in any other situation. You can use an iPad while you're holding it, and it only weights a pound and a half. Also, the iPad has a multi-touch interface, which is much more intuitive and usable than a desktop OS in my opinion.
That's not what I got from it at all. What I read was "the iPad is the first potentially viable tablet computing device, and other computer makers need to get with the program so that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the market".
First of all, who said that the iPad is a "convergence" device? It's not meant to replace desktops and laptops (in fact, it requires one!) it's meant to supplement them.
Secondly, broad generalizations rarely make accurate predictions. This argument makes no sense because it makes no real consideration of the merits and potential uses for the device. As long as it fills an unfilled niche, or works better than existing alternatives it will find success.
For example, I currently have a laptop, but is it not convenient enough for me to use it as such (It basically sits at home and waits for me to use it there). I do most of my computing on my iPhone. With the iPad, I will be able to access the internet anywhere, and produce documents on the go. So it may be a good fit for me, and I may be able to sell my macbook and buy a mac mini instead. Of course, I'm going to have to hold one in my hands and play with it for a while before I will be willing to shell out $$$ for one.
Internet search engines are a product, which Google was selling in China. It is trade, and it's nothing like what you've said here. Google has said they won't modify their product to meet China's requirements, China has said "fine, then we don't want 'em" so Google is leaving. Google hasn't done anything wrong, nor have they done anything like what you've described.
Agreed, basic macroeconomics explains this very well. The party paying the tax is determinable only by the supply and demand curves, which fall outside the realm of government control. Where they government takes the money from is really just an accounting trick to hide the true costs from the people who really pay them.
BTW, if you aren't aware, you should read this passage in it's context in John:
This verse always comes to my mind when someone is complaining about how someone else is spending their time and resources. Surely, a selfless person would not be concerned with such matters.
I crushed my finger about a year ago, and I went to the ER to get it sewed up. I gave them my insurance information, at the time, and I asked them how much I would have to pay but they couldn't tell me. I saw one doctor twice, the first time she examined it for a few minutes, the second time she spend about 20 minutes stitching it up. Apart from that, a NP examined it and two x-ray techs came and took an x-ray of it.
2 months later I got a bill for $2,000 (which claimed it was already past-due, though I'd never received an earlier one). I eventually walked them through submitting the claim properly to my insurance company, but not before they offered to "settle" with me for $1,000 (why would I pay that? I have insurance!). To my thinking, neither cost is acceptable for what was in aggregate about one hour of work (but of course they didn't bill me by the hour, they billed me for the procedures: the examination, x-ray, to "close" my finger, and to "repair" the laceration, I was never clear on how those last two are different from each other and they constituted the bulk of the cost)
From what I can tell, medical billing is a completely bogus and filled with inconsistencies and carelessness. On the other hand, the care I received was top-notch, and I have no complaints. The follow up care, as well as the billing for it, was completely painless because the doctor I went to seemed to have his ducks in a row.
How does it taste?
Have you ever heard of the WTO? We most certainly can sue them, and not only over this, but also over their labor practices and especially their blatant price fixing. Why don't we? We don't want to lose the trade partner.
It all depends on what is politically possible. If people want a high-speed rail, the politicians will jump on board so they can put their name on it and build their personal empire. If public support is mixed, however, politicians want to avoid the potential stain on their reputation.
It's not like a politician will buck popular opinion and do the "right" thing (which is usually a subjective question anyway). Some do, but they don't last long or go very far. You are giving the leadership in Europe way too much credit. They just do whatever is politically expedient, the same as politicians do in the states. The difference is that people in Europe want high-speed rail and socialized health care, while in the US many people see these things as an unwanted intrusion by the state into their personal affairs.