I addressed that in the very next sentence that you conveniently disregarded... yeeesh...
You didn't address it. You 'offered' this:
If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public (which is at the root of your concern), then such laws should be overturned, allowing less expensive treatments to exist.
Do you really think the sole reason that health care is so prohibitively expensive is the Government preventing less expensive treatments from being available? Might it have anything to do with drug patents and pharmaceutical companies that spend more money on marketing than they do on research and development?
That right there has always boggled my mind. Why the hell should drugs need to be marketed? "This is what our drug can treat, this is when you would prescribe it and these are the contraindications" seems to me to be the extent of the "marketing" that should be required for prescription drugs.
The public services are funded through an unjustifiable rights violation
I don't see any of the examples I cited as an "unjustifiable rights violation".
Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest price
Is that why the cost of text messaging has increased from free to $0.02/ea to $0.10/ea to $0.15/ea to $0.20/ea? Is that why my cable bill goes up each year even though they face competition from satellite and even the telco (in some areas)? Is that why nearly every major credit card company adopts fee increases and draconian policies like universal default at the same time?
I admire your faith in the free market but history doesn't seem to justify it. It seems to me that smaller more nimble companies will be focused on providing the best service at the best price but that eventually they grow to a size where it becomes easier to just gobble up most of the competition and establish a oligopoly with those that are too big to buy out. The cellular industry is the perfect example of this. We are now down to just four major carriers all of whom have the exact same anti-consumer policies. None of whom have any incentive to change them. All of whom are using their riches to buy up spectrum to stop anyone new from entering the market.
I'll grant you that in some cases the Government deserves some blame for this (cable franchise agreements come to mind) but I just don't share your faith in that things would be any different under a true laissez-faire type system.
Or, if they can't afford it, they should choose a less expensive treatment
And if none exists they should just roll over and die, right?
As for morality: it is immoral to take by force from another individual any of their property. Agreed?
No, I don't agree. Our Government has been doing this for the greater good ever since the invention of the railroad and the subsequent use of eminent domain and/or right-of-ways to ensure that railroads could connect the entire country. Ditto for roads, telecommunications lines, airports, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You'll brook no argument from me if you come back and say that the Government abuses those powers quite often -- but the idea that we can NEVER take property from the individual to benefit the whole is extreme Libertarian nonsense that even the Founding Fathers disagreed with.
What does devalue the dollar, though, is printing more money out of thin air (read: the deficit)
It's not just being printed out of thin air. Government backed securities are sold to individuals/investment firms/other Governments to finance deficit spending. I still think that's a pretty foolish policy in most cases but don't equate it to just printing fiat money out of thin air. That doesn't tell the whole story.
People have a right to everything that they have freely acquired through trade with other freely-acting individuals.
If Conservatives really believe that then why are most of them in favor of the War on Drugs?
Right because so many things like this weren't against Bush when he was elected the 2nd time.
This time is not like last time. The war is unpopular now (it wasn't then) and people aren't afraid of terrorism any longer. The economy is also going down the tubes.
Is it just me or is McCain one big senior moment away from totally blowing this thing for himself? 'Beer' instead of 'bill', 'Shiite' instead of 'Sunni', the overall creepiness of his speech delivery ("That's not change we can believe in.... hehehe"), blah, blah, blah.
He's not suited for leading a government - he doesn't have the spine to stand up for himself and pursue what he thinks is right
He's had the spine to stand up for himself quite well against the HRC and Republican attack machines. He's also one of the few politicians I've ever seen that can retain some semblance of class while going on the offensive. I rather enjoyed "I honor John McCain for his achievements, even if he chooses to deny mine"
If you can't see these weaknesses, perhaps you should try to escape your bubble periodically
I see weaknesses in every candidate, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't see some weakness in their candidate of choice is a partisan hack.
On balance though I think he has the right combination of intelligence and strength to lead this country. On balance I think that most of his ideas are good ones and he realizes that we can't keep arguing with each other while ignoring the rise of China and India if we wish to remain a global power. His plan to end the war on science and make education a long term priority should appeal to anyone that wants to see the United States remain competitive on the global stage.
Do you think he's stupid? Do you think he's weak? If so I think you are in for a rude surprise.
Hillary dominated him with average American citizens: working class Americans who love the country, lean slightly right, but have no affiliation whatsoever with either party
Umm, I don't know where you are getting this from. Hillary had her best showings in states with closed primaries. Obama did much better in states with open primaries where independents could vote. I won't argue with you over working class voters but you lost me at "no affiliation whatsoever with either party" because Obama did much better among Independents than Hillary did.
BTW, I don't think that Obama's appeal is underestimated like the GP. I think McCain's appeal is overestimated. The Conservative base doesn't like him -- the religious folks for obvious reasons, the true conservatives because of McCain-Feingold. If he swings to the center then he further alienates this conservative base (witness the flub over him talking about climate change). If he swings to the right then he runs the risk of losing the independents because he has to associate with GWB and his 30% approval rating. He's also linked to a war that 70% of this country opposes.
I could totally see Obama pulling off a sizable victory. A lot of that will have to do with his appeal as a charismatic candidate -- but a lot of it is also going to have to do with the mistakes that McCain is making and the tough position the Republican Party is in.
But unfortunately we have become a one party state, as there is precious little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, both of whom say "how high?" when their corporate campaign donors say "jump".
Is that the Democratic led house is the only thing stopping telecom immunity from becoming a reality? If you want to make the argument that both parties are in bed with corporate interests you won't get any argument out of me. But if you then take that argument and turn it into "we have become a one party state" I'm going to challenge you.
If you care (either way) about abortion, taxes, civil liberties, foreign policy, science policy or education policy it's pretty stupid to assume that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. There are major differences between the two parties on these issues and others.
The Democrats didn't declare war on science. The Democrats didn't launch a war on false pretenses. The Democrats didn't push a tax cut for the richest 1% of this country and push the Federal budget hundreds of billions into the red. The Democrats haven't been blocking stem-cell research that could eventually lead to cures for some of our worst diseases.
But that's fine.... keep on thinking that the two parties are the same. Next you'll tell me that nothing would have been different if Gore had won in 2000 as opposed to GWB.
The very fact that customers continue to buy unbranded CDMA phones in the US from Verizon and Sprint would seem to put at least some of the blame on the customers for choosing to do business with those companies.
I assume that was a typo because you can't (AFAIK) buy an unbranded CDMA phone. Even if you go directly to Motorola's website all they have is branded phones. And even if you could buy an unbranded one the carrier would likely just refuse to activate it.
For most major population centers in this country there is an option between GSM and CDMA and where that choice exists still significant people choose to purchase CDMA.
I wonder why.
Maybe because in a lot of areas CDMA has much better coverage? Not all of us are lucky enough to live in a major city where all four carriers have good networks and coverage isn't a concern. Around these parts GSM stops working if you wander away from the highway and out into the sticks. CDMA keeps working. I'm still with T-Mobile because I rarely venture into those areas but if you are a businessman or someone on call and need the coverage you may not have a choice other than CDMA at the present time.
Don't like it? Don't buy from them, simple as that.
Not everyone has that luxury. A cellular phone is a must for many people nowadays. If it doesn't have coverage than what's the point? If the only way to get coverage is to suck it up and go with CDMA what choice do you have?
that would require Verizon and sprint to abandon their existing infrastructure. Which is based not on GSM but on CDMA.
RUIM's act like a SIM card for CDMA networks. All they'd have to do is decide that they want to use them and give control to their users instead of locking them into the walled garden.
Wasn't even a smartphone. Was just a Motorola V195. Generic looking el-cheapo GSM phone that worked well for me.
Asked them about buying a new one without touching my contract. Was told that it would cost $120. Asked if I could buy a prepaid one instead -- exact same model sells for $30 through the prepaid group. Told that it wouldn't work. Bought the prepaid model anyway and put my postpaid SIM card in it -- guess what? Works just fine.
This whole incident begs two questions: 1) Why is the exact same phone $90 cheaper if I buy it through the prepaid group? 2) Why lie to your customers and claim that something won't work when thousands of people (and the GSM specification) say otherwise?
Don't get me wrong, I still love T-Mo -- they are the best of the worst -- but this whole incident really annoyed the hell out of me.
Cell phone buyers are the worst for this, they more or less destroy the market for buying phones seperately.
Your blaming the consumers? Blame the friggen carriers. They are the ones that locked down their networks. They are the ones that claim that you can't use a non-branded phone on their networks -- even the GSM carriers will claim this and it's total BS with regards to GSM (any unlocked GSM phone will function for calls and SMS on any GSM network). They are the ones seeking to lock people into crippled phones that can only access their approved walled-garden content.
Blaming the consumers is just plain stupid. You literally can't buy an unbranded CDMA phone in the United States. You can buy an unbranded GSM phone but that doesn't help the people on Verizon or Sprint.
Your mother didn't teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? "He can do it so I shall too!" Grow up.
Dude, get a friggen grip.
It's not our job to make sure that our purchases are profitable for Apple and/or AT&T. Ethics doesn't require anything other than not shoplifting the phone. It's not unethical to do what you want with something that you bought and paid for.
Russia is in the better position with bigger oil reserves compared to Canada's tarsands, and with a larger educated population that can leverage the benefits of being resource rich
You neglected to mention the fact that Russia is losing population at a fairly alarming rate right now. You forgot to mention that the typical life expectancy for men in Russia is sixty.
Never underestimate Russia but they have a lot of problems to overcome before they become a superpower again.
It would probably be more accurate to say that I dislike the West Coast. It's just not somewhere I would choose to go to live. As far as California specifically goes it's just too easy to make fun of you. Recall election followed by electing this guy your governor? Of course, maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones;)
Then again, you did give us Reagan. My state gave the country Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. So on balance I suppose I can still make fun of California;) All in good humor of course -- I'd happily live in California before I'd live in Texas or the deep south.
Do you like famous people/do you want to become famous (yeah, right)? Live in Los Angeles.
If that's your cup of tea you could do it in New York City. Those are probably the only two cities in the country though -- hard pressed to think of any others.
Do you like politics? Live in Sacramento, or really any big city.
Albany, though "really any big city" still applies.
Do you like mountainous terrain or skiing (or hiking)? How about Big Bear, or Mount Shasta?
Do you like Beaches and consistant weather? Try La Jolla or San Diego.
I'll grant you this one. Not really any place to get 'consistent weather' on the East Coast. Florida I suppose, but who the hell would want to live in that humiliation of a state?;) *duck* Besides, if I had to choose between earthquakes and hurricanes I'd take the earthquakes any day of the week.
The only place I can't really think of where you might want to live is in small town America, which probably still has representation in this state.
I'm sure it does. You can leave New York City and drive about an hour and be out in the country. I've always loved that. Is it like that with the bigger cities in CA?
The only other reason why I think you might not want to live here is because you love public transportation.
That's probably not anymore available in New York than California if you take New York City out of the calculation. Our mass transit in other large cities sucks ass. In NYC it's great -- if you can afford to live there you don't even need a car. The 'if you can afford to live there' is the tricky part though.
I don't know any of those names but one: Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA). The only 'constituents' that she gives a rat ass about are those that work for the content industry.
This is the woman that pushed the Copyright Term Extension Act through Congress. This is a telling quote: (emphasis mine)
"Actually, Sonny [reference to her late husband, Sonny Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."
WTF is wrong with our elected officials? IANAL but I've read the Constitution enough times (and paid enough attention in civics class) to understand that the power of Congress to grant patents/copyrights is time limited. Let me help you Congresswoman:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
I also love the bit about what the MPAA President wanted. Care to tell me why his concerns should carry anymore weight then those of any American citizen?
In short, she's a bitch and I wish I lived in her district so I could vote against her. Since I wouldn't live in California if you paid me a million bucks a minute (sorry to my friends on the west coast!) I'll have to be content with donating money to the campaign of whomever runs against her.
I thought SSL MITM isn't possible, could you please point me to a page explaining how that works ?
Atleast when certificates are properly checked it shouldn't be possible.
H. Clinton lost because she is widely and correctly perceived as being a vicious and corrupt individual.
I'm sorry but I just don't see that. HRC lost because she didn't bother investing the effort to build organizations in the caucus states. HRC lost because she didn't take any of her fellow Democrats seriously enough to think that she'd have to make any effort beyond Super Tuesday. She didn't lose because people perceive her as a corrupt individual -- indeed, once she "found her voice" she started to win elections.
If the current HRC had been the one on the campaign trail back in January it might have been a very different story. Obama might now be the candidate who is just out of reach of the nomination.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure free public healthcare (welfare) is a cornerstone of his campaign
Where did you get the impression that any of the Democrats health care plans would be "free"? Hillary talked about garnishing paychecks. No one is purposing "free" health care.
FWIW I'm not the biggest fan of any of their plans. But you can't do nothing as John McCain purposes. There is simply no reason that a gainfully employed American should have to file bankruptcy if they get sick. Yet that's exactly what happens to a lot of people. Do you really see the current situation as sustainable?
As far as proving the democratic party has demonstrated an affinity for giving free stuff to people and creating massive bureaucracies to manage those peoples' lives for them
As opposed to the massive bureaucracy created by the Republicans that thinks keeping us safe means outlawing bottled water and breast milk on airplanes? I'll ask you again: What "free" stuff is Barack Obama offering?
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't address it. You 'offered' this:
If the government is preventing less expensive treatments from being available to the public (which is at the root of your concern), then such laws should be overturned, allowing less expensive treatments to exist.Do you really think the sole reason that health care is so prohibitively expensive is the Government preventing less expensive treatments from being available? Might it have anything to do with drug patents and pharmaceutical companies that spend more money on marketing than they do on research and development?
That right there has always boggled my mind. Why the hell should drugs need to be marketed? "This is what our drug can treat, this is when you would prescribe it and these are the contraindications" seems to me to be the extent of the "marketing" that should be required for prescription drugs.
The public services are funded through an unjustifiable rights violationI don't see any of the examples I cited as an "unjustifiable rights violation".
Competition among private services gives private companies an incentive to provide the best possible service at the lowest priceIs that why the cost of text messaging has increased from free to $0.02/ea to $0.10/ea to $0.15/ea to $0.20/ea? Is that why my cable bill goes up each year even though they face competition from satellite and even the telco (in some areas)? Is that why nearly every major credit card company adopts fee increases and draconian policies like universal default at the same time?
I admire your faith in the free market but history doesn't seem to justify it. It seems to me that smaller more nimble companies will be focused on providing the best service at the best price but that eventually they grow to a size where it becomes easier to just gobble up most of the competition and establish a oligopoly with those that are too big to buy out. The cellular industry is the perfect example of this. We are now down to just four major carriers all of whom have the exact same anti-consumer policies. None of whom have any incentive to change them. All of whom are using their riches to buy up spectrum to stop anyone new from entering the market.
I'll grant you that in some cases the Government deserves some blame for this (cable franchise agreements come to mind) but I just don't share your faith in that things would be any different under a true laissez-faire type system.
Have I ever said that they don't both suck? The only thing I've said all along is that people who think they suck equally are completely misinformed.
Care about stem cell research? Then the parties aren't the same.
Care about abortion? Then the parties aren't the same.
Care about tax policy? Then the parties aren't the same.
Care about immigration policy? ... ... ...
Care about foreign policy? ... ... ...
Care about torture? ... ... ...
And if none exists they should just roll over and die, right?
As for morality: it is immoral to take by force from another individual any of their property. Agreed?No, I don't agree. Our Government has been doing this for the greater good ever since the invention of the railroad and the subsequent use of eminent domain and/or right-of-ways to ensure that railroads could connect the entire country. Ditto for roads, telecommunications lines, airports, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You'll brook no argument from me if you come back and say that the Government abuses those powers quite often -- but the idea that we can NEVER take property from the individual to benefit the whole is extreme Libertarian nonsense that even the Founding Fathers disagreed with.
What does devalue the dollar, though, is printing more money out of thin air (read: the deficit)It's not just being printed out of thin air. Government backed securities are sold to individuals/investment firms/other Governments to finance deficit spending. I still think that's a pretty foolish policy in most cases but don't equate it to just printing fiat money out of thin air. That doesn't tell the whole story.
People have a right to everything that they have freely acquired through trade with other freely-acting individuals.If Conservatives really believe that then why are most of them in favor of the War on Drugs?
This time is not like last time. The war is unpopular now (it wasn't then) and people aren't afraid of terrorism any longer. The economy is also going down the tubes.
Is it just me or is McCain one big senior moment away from totally blowing this thing for himself? 'Beer' instead of 'bill', 'Shiite' instead of 'Sunni', the overall creepiness of his speech delivery ("That's not change we can believe in.... hehehe"), blah, blah, blah.
If he falls off a stage this thing is over with.
Oh no! The dreaded 'E' word! Cuz lord knows there are no rich snobs in rural parts of the country.... only in the urban centers.
How about a few?
1) The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction
He's not suited for leading a government - he doesn't have the spine to stand up for himself and pursue what he thinks is right2) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (check out this site)
3) Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (here's a story about it)
He's had the spine to stand up for himself quite well against the HRC and Republican attack machines. He's also one of the few politicians I've ever seen that can retain some semblance of class while going on the offensive. I rather enjoyed "I honor John McCain for his achievements, even if he chooses to deny mine"
If you can't see these weaknesses, perhaps you should try to escape your bubble periodicallyI see weaknesses in every candidate, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't see some weakness in their candidate of choice is a partisan hack.
On balance though I think he has the right combination of intelligence and strength to lead this country. On balance I think that most of his ideas are good ones and he realizes that we can't keep arguing with each other while ignoring the rise of China and India if we wish to remain a global power. His plan to end the war on science and make education a long term priority should appeal to anyone that wants to see the United States remain competitive on the global stage.
Do you think he's stupid? Do you think he's weak? If so I think you are in for a rude surprise.
Republican excesses in areas like civil liberties and foreign policy haven't exactly won them many friends in the electorate.
Umm, I don't know where you are getting this from. Hillary had her best showings in states with closed primaries. Obama did much better in states with open primaries where independents could vote. I won't argue with you over working class voters but you lost me at "no affiliation whatsoever with either party" because Obama did much better among Independents than Hillary did.
BTW, I don't think that Obama's appeal is underestimated like the GP. I think McCain's appeal is overestimated. The Conservative base doesn't like him -- the religious folks for obvious reasons, the true conservatives because of McCain-Feingold. If he swings to the center then he further alienates this conservative base (witness the flub over him talking about climate change). If he swings to the right then he runs the risk of losing the independents because he has to associate with GWB and his 30% approval rating. He's also linked to a war that 70% of this country opposes.
I could totally see Obama pulling off a sizable victory. A lot of that will have to do with his appeal as a charismatic candidate -- but a lot of it is also going to have to do with the mistakes that McCain is making and the tough position the Republican Party is in.
And who would that be? McCain married into quite a bit of money as I recall.
Is that the Democratic led house is the only thing stopping telecom immunity from becoming a reality? If you want to make the argument that both parties are in bed with corporate interests you won't get any argument out of me. But if you then take that argument and turn it into "we have become a one party state" I'm going to challenge you.
If you care (either way) about abortion, taxes, civil liberties, foreign policy, science policy or education policy it's pretty stupid to assume that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. There are major differences between the two parties on these issues and others.
The Democrats didn't declare war on science. The Democrats didn't launch a war on false pretenses. The Democrats didn't push a tax cut for the richest 1% of this country and push the Federal budget hundreds of billions into the red. The Democrats haven't been blocking stem-cell research that could eventually lead to cures for some of our worst diseases.
But that's fine.... keep on thinking that the two parties are the same. Next you'll tell me that nothing would have been different if Gore had won in 2000 as opposed to GWB.
I assume that was a typo because you can't (AFAIK) buy an unbranded CDMA phone. Even if you go directly to Motorola's website all they have is branded phones. And even if you could buy an unbranded one the carrier would likely just refuse to activate it.
For most major population centers in this country there is an option between GSM and CDMA and where that choice exists still significant people choose to purchase CDMA. I wonder why.Maybe because in a lot of areas CDMA has much better coverage? Not all of us are lucky enough to live in a major city where all four carriers have good networks and coverage isn't a concern. Around these parts GSM stops working if you wander away from the highway and out into the sticks. CDMA keeps working. I'm still with T-Mobile because I rarely venture into those areas but if you are a businessman or someone on call and need the coverage you may not have a choice other than CDMA at the present time.
Don't like it? Don't buy from them, simple as that.Not everyone has that luxury. A cellular phone is a must for many people nowadays. If it doesn't have coverage than what's the point? If the only way to get coverage is to suck it up and go with CDMA what choice do you have?
RUIM's act like a SIM card for CDMA networks. All they'd have to do is decide that they want to use them and give control to their users instead of locking them into the walled garden.
Wasn't even a smartphone. Was just a Motorola V195. Generic looking el-cheapo GSM phone that worked well for me.
Asked them about buying a new one without touching my contract. Was told that it would cost $120. Asked if I could buy a prepaid one instead -- exact same model sells for $30 through the prepaid group. Told that it wouldn't work. Bought the prepaid model anyway and put my postpaid SIM card in it -- guess what? Works just fine.
This whole incident begs two questions: 1) Why is the exact same phone $90 cheaper if I buy it through the prepaid group? 2) Why lie to your customers and claim that something won't work when thousands of people (and the GSM specification) say otherwise?
Don't get me wrong, I still love T-Mo -- they are the best of the worst -- but this whole incident really annoyed the hell out of me.
Your blaming the consumers? Blame the friggen carriers. They are the ones that locked down their networks. They are the ones that claim that you can't use a non-branded phone on their networks -- even the GSM carriers will claim this and it's total BS with regards to GSM (any unlocked GSM phone will function for calls and SMS on any GSM network). They are the ones seeking to lock people into crippled phones that can only access their approved walled-garden content.
Blaming the consumers is just plain stupid. You literally can't buy an unbranded CDMA phone in the United States. You can buy an unbranded GSM phone but that doesn't help the people on Verizon or Sprint.
Dude, get a friggen grip.
It's not our job to make sure that our purchases are profitable for Apple and/or AT&T. Ethics doesn't require anything other than not shoplifting the phone. It's not unethical to do what you want with something that you bought and paid for.
You neglected to mention the fact that Russia is losing population at a fairly alarming rate right now. You forgot to mention that the typical life expectancy for men in Russia is sixty.
Never underestimate Russia but they have a lot of problems to overcome before they become a superpower again.
It would probably be more accurate to say that I dislike the West Coast. It's just not somewhere I would choose to go to live. As far as California specifically goes it's just too easy to make fun of you. Recall election followed by electing this guy your governor? Of course, maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones ;)
Then again, you did give us Reagan. My state gave the country Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. So on balance I suppose I can still make fun of California ;) All in good humor of course -- I'd happily live in California before I'd live in Texas or the deep south.
Do you like famous people/do you want to become famous (yeah, right)? Live in Los Angeles.If that's your cup of tea you could do it in New York City. Those are probably the only two cities in the country though -- hard pressed to think of any others.
Do you like politics? Live in Sacramento, or really any big city.Albany, though "really any big city" still applies.
Do you like mountainous terrain or skiing (or hiking)? How about Big Bear, or Mount Shasta?We got that covered too -- largest state park in the United States.
Do you like Beaches and consistant weather? Try La Jolla or San Diego.I'll grant you this one. Not really any place to get 'consistent weather' on the East Coast. Florida I suppose, but who the hell would want to live in that humiliation of a state? ;) *duck* Besides, if I had to choose between earthquakes and hurricanes I'd take the earthquakes any day of the week.
The only place I can't really think of where you might want to live is in small town America, which probably still has representation in this state.I'm sure it does. You can leave New York City and drive about an hour and be out in the country. I've always loved that. Is it like that with the bigger cities in CA?
The only other reason why I think you might not want to live here is because you love public transportation.That's probably not anymore available in New York than California if you take New York City out of the calculation. Our mass transit in other large cities sucks ass. In NYC it's great -- if you can afford to live there you don't even need a car. The 'if you can afford to live there' is the tricky part though.
Never. The business community needs encrypted traffic.
I don't know any of those names but one: Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA). The only 'constituents' that she gives a rat ass about are those that work for the content industry.
This is the woman that pushed the Copyright Term Extension Act through Congress. This is a telling quote: (emphasis mine)
"Actually, Sonny [reference to her late husband, Sonny Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress."WTF is wrong with our elected officials? IANAL but I've read the Constitution enough times (and paid enough attention in civics class) to understand that the power of Congress to grant patents/copyrights is time limited. Let me help you Congresswoman:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;I also love the bit about what the MPAA President wanted. Care to tell me why his concerns should carry anymore weight then those of any American citizen?
In short, she's a bitch and I wish I lived in her district so I could vote against her. Since I wouldn't live in California if you paid me a million bucks a minute (sorry to my friends on the west coast!) I'll have to be content with donating money to the campaign of whomever runs against her.
Doing man-in-the middle attacks on SSL connections is beyond the technical ability of ISPs for now, even if users don't bother to check certificates
Fixed that for you
You just explained how it's possible.
I'm sorry but I just don't see that. HRC lost because she didn't bother investing the effort to build organizations in the caucus states. HRC lost because she didn't take any of her fellow Democrats seriously enough to think that she'd have to make any effort beyond Super Tuesday. She didn't lose because people perceive her as a corrupt individual -- indeed, once she "found her voice" she started to win elections.
If the current HRC had been the one on the campaign trail back in January it might have been a very different story. Obama might now be the candidate who is just out of reach of the nomination.
Where did you get the impression that any of the Democrats health care plans would be "free"? Hillary talked about garnishing paychecks. No one is purposing "free" health care.
FWIW I'm not the biggest fan of any of their plans. But you can't do nothing as John McCain purposes. There is simply no reason that a gainfully employed American should have to file bankruptcy if they get sick. Yet that's exactly what happens to a lot of people. Do you really see the current situation as sustainable?
As far as proving the democratic party has demonstrated an affinity for giving free stuff to people and creating massive bureaucracies to manage those peoples' lives for themAs opposed to the massive bureaucracy created by the Republicans that thinks keeping us safe means outlawing bottled water and breast milk on airplanes? I'll ask you again: What "free" stuff is Barack Obama offering?
My guess is that the Swedish economy is less dependent on oil than the American one is.