Heh... I turned off all the new stuff.. but now the subject and comment text boxes are shoved WAY to the right..and so the comment on goes past the edge of the browser window into the black border..
That's how Charter sees it though.. either you get a commercial or residental line. If it's not commercial or residental, then what kind of use would you call it then?
The OP said he downloaded more on his residental plan than the normal residental user... but that doesn't mean he's not a residental user. It means he's a private home owner not using the connection to make money.. which is the same definition Charter has, by the way. Just because he uses it alot more doesn't mean he should be forced to a more expensive connection.
Charter provided it, he used it. They gambled people would pay for a connection and not use it.. and now they are pissed that people are using what they paid for. This is a bait and switch as far as I'm concerned.
Again.. if tying works, then the market for FF should be stagnant.. not growing. Economic theory by the way is just that.. theory. Those that claim to understand it do so to make a profit off of you... otherwise we should have seen this current collapse coming a mile away, yes?
I find your response kind of ironic, because if you couldn't find a job where you wanted to live, it seems you'd be the one benefiting from enjoy universal health care.
How far I live from my job has nothing to do with my health. I sit at a desk all day, and spend 30 minutes commuting each way. I also eat properly to keep my metabolism up and spend about an hour at the gym six days a week. In the nicer weather, I'm also active outside.
It's much easier to control your health; it depends on NO ONE but yourself. Finding a job nearby is difficult; jobs may not pay enough in one city to be able to actually live in said city (NYC is a great example... which is why many people commute from north NJ). You also have to have the timing right, even if you live in an area where an employer does pay enough for you to live nearby (or the reverse.. the employer is located near cheaper housing... but the usually corrilary there is that there are much fewer employers around).
If you don't like the tangent taken, you were of course free not to even bother replying to my last post too, BTW./. Is a discussion board... and you were the one that took things off topic by talking about national healthcare. If you want more ontopic dicussions, please try to keep your comments on topic then as well.
Oh give it a rest. Type II Diabetes and other obesity related diseases are rising at the same rate as obesity. And just look around; there's a LOT more fat people running around today than 20 years ago. BMI measurements also haven't changed in quite some time.. but our lifestyle sure has.
I'll add to that.. about five tickets in 13 years.
I've had there non-fault accidents: 1. Hit from behind while stopped behind a vehical waiting to make a left turn. 2. Sideswiped by a car that suddently entered my lane without looking. 3. Front passenger side collision caused by a driver at a stop not looking left before making the turn (and she really gunnged it when she decided to go.. but was only look right).
I think you have no business driving, when you clearly fail to understand that 1) it's imposible to keep withing exactly 1 MPH of the limit and 2) that most spediometers are not even accurate to that level and 3) the measuring device at the wheel isn't accurate enough to properly determine speed.
It has nothing to do with not being able to controlyour car; it has to do with not being able to control your car precisely enough to always be at the legal limit.
The problem is that the safest speed limits obey the 85th-percential rule. If 85th percentile are driving 75 or under, what is your justification to ticket them? What you propose is mostly what we have now.. the problem of course is that the hard limits are maniuplated to 1) generate revenue for the state 2) generate revenue for insurance companies.
The other problem with your solution is that you can never have perfect enforcement (well, not without crushing costs). Of course if we COULD get perfect enforcement... maybe that would wake up enough people to DEMAND speed limits be set properly.
It's evil in that you are hurting the whole of society, including your child.
Self-preservation isn't evil. Also, it's not hurting the "whole of society" if society chose to be vaccinated.. my own stupidity (note that I DO think vaccines are a good idea.. just don't think FORCING them is) may affect me and my family, but it's really no one else's business.
It's selfish becasue it's based on a belief that is wrong, but the person refuises to acknowledge the fact to support their ideology.
The only point I'm aruging is that it should be up to the parents to choose what's best for them and their family. I think it's pretty much a given that we DON'T want society to dictate how you raise your kids, right? Honestly, if you think it's your job to override the parent's wishes for the safety of the child, we really shouldn't let ANY parents keep their children, since 90% of all sexual abuse cases are family members molesting the child, not a stranger. So from that point of view, they'd be better off with strangers.
The tiny risk from a vaccines is nothing compared to the result of no vaccines for people.
I never said I was against vaccines or people getting them. I'm against people forcing others to take a risk with a kid that isn't theirs. I believe that stupid people should be allowed to suffer the full consequences of their stupidity.
Remember, it's not just that your child might be sick, it's also that your child is now a vector for mutation of a disease, getting one of these diseases and dying.
And what's the risk that our drugs ONLY leave drug-resistent strains of the virus around? I'd say the risk of this is as small as the risks involved in vaccinating to begin with.
Again, you are risking other people and your children FAR more by not getting vaccinated. It is mean, evil, and ignorant beyond belief to intentionally leave them open to the risk of these diseases.
And it's not evil to force your will upon others? What if there's a religous objection to vaccination? If you're fine with staying "tough shit" then I think that opens up religion to all sorts of other attacks. People have been using religion to oppress people for centuries. Personally I'd love nothing more than for organized religion to vanish.. but I'm not going to force it out of people either.
You said it when you assumed that by not giving Iowans disproportionate representation, that people in big cities would be telling Iowans how to live their lives. If you assume Iowans are not exercising their disproportionate influence to receive disproportionate benefits from the federal government, then there is no reason to assume that city centers would do so either if voting was made equitable among all citizens (as opposed to among pieces of geography).
It's not disproprotionate; it's setup so that 100 people aren't tramped on by the wishes of 100,000. That's what each state gets EQUAL representation in the Senate. There, population doesn't matter. Of course there's a problem now with direct election of Senators; now now state GOVERNMENT is represeted in the Federal government.. which is why the feds have been scooping up the power since then.
Of course the larger states only give concessions to the smaller states when they need something of the smaller states; that's how things should be. Instead of dictating, larger states are forced to compromise, and partake in quid pro quo. If the larger states don't want to give more money to the smaller states, they need to stop asking for things the smaller states may not want... which again would put the power back into the state, not the feds.
Regarding Vermont, you're right, I was mistaken. Amend that to Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, etc. then for the small states that forced this inequitable result.
Sorry, did NJ, DE and NH hold a gun to the larger states head? Looking at it from the smaller states side... why would NJ, DE or NH WANT to join a union where they will promptly be ignored precisely because they ARE smaller? Would you ever enter into a completely one-sided contract? I doubt it.
Good point! Give me all your money. Now. I don't give a damn about your family that I don't know. I want MY friends and family to have money.
You're welcome to try and come take it from me. What is your point with this, really? You're suprised I'm not going to hand over my money to you? Really?
Call me selfish, then. I'm also collecting tax money from you to fund my kids' schools. I'm a right bastard, aren't I?
Yup.. since I didn't get a say in how many kids you had, if you're going to have more, what school they go to, how much time they spend studying, what they eat and a host of other things that are effectively out of my control. But if you want to insist I pay for your kids school, I'm going to insist they are raised a certain way.
Let's start with making schools boarding schools, so you don't interfere with their education in any way, or waste time passing your religous beliefs to them.. that's time better spent learning math as far as I'm concerned.
Huh? Since when is it evil to care about your family over someone whom you don't know? Seriously, I could give a damn about a family I don't know. I want MY friends and family to survive.
I can also argue that you're being selfish; forcing one person to get a vaccine, for which you acknowledge a risk, for their kid so YOURS isn't in risk. THAT is selfish; expecting someone else to risk their kid for yours.
If you don't get your lexus, at worst you don't have a car.
And possiblly not have a job, since we don't have reliable public transportation everyone, or affordable housing new places of employment.
Your neighbor doesn't get the health care she needs, she dies.
Oh well. People die all the time. Given the obesity rate, she's probably obese, and clearly doesn't care if she lives. That's what's lacking in all this nonsense about national health care. There's no requirement for people to step up and take responsiblity for their own bad choices... but yet I get stuck with the bill when some fatass gets diabetes.
So please, spare me the "so and so will DIE without healthcare." So and so needs take responsiblity for her own life and wellbeing, and stop whining that everyone else should do it for her.
I wish people would stop making analogies on slashdot, as they're invariably awful.
IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.
Um, no. You'd likely get a ticket just for not letting off the gas enough going downhill. Clearly stupid. Laws which are ignored to be stricken; it's obvious people don't want them, and that they fail to reconize human behavior.
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
Well, I'm sure we could catch thieves and murders if we just allowed police to randomly search houses too. That doesn't justify making petty criminals out of almost everyone else.
Where did you see me say that Iowa should tell people in cities how they should live either? The federal government should be small and do very little, and then only things that benefit all the states. A common defense, roads, etc. Everything else should be left to the states.
Apparently the larger colonies felt the smaller states were important enough to include in the Union. It also fits our Founders beliefs on rights; it's not a sumation game, where my rights plus someone elses rights are greater than your rights (which is what democracy is, by the way, and the reason why specifically didn't built a democratic state).
You should really really brush up on your history; Vermont didn't exist as an independent state until AFTER the Union had been formed. I doubt they would have joined (nor would the other smaller colonies) had the Constitution not been setup the way it is.
People don't vote because people are generally lazy and apathetic about things outside their immediate sphere of reference. Which is not to say that they don't have opinions about things outside their sphere--they just don't do anything about those opinions.
Sounds like a really, really good reason for the State to have more power than the Federal government.
Yes, there's a very good reason a voter in Iowa should receive a bigger say; when it affects their state. Why should people in big cities tell Iowans how to live their life? The federal government affects Iowa, and just because there's more people in CA and NY doesn't give people in CA and NY the right to dictate to IA.
Slashdot Mirror
Ya, that's what I thought too. Why so skewed towards women?
Heh... I turned off all the new stuff.. but now the subject and comment text boxes are shoved WAY to the right..and so the comment on goes past the edge of the browser window into the black border..
Doh... one of our repeaters is busted!
That's how Charter sees it though.. either you get a commercial or residental line. If it's not commercial or residental, then what kind of use would you call it then?
The OP said he downloaded more on his residental plan than the normal residental user... but that doesn't mean he's not a residental user. It means he's a private home owner not using the connection to make money.. which is the same definition Charter has, by the way. Just because he uses it alot more doesn't mean he should be forced to a more expensive connection.
Charter provided it, he used it. They gambled people would pay for a connection and not use it.. and now they are pissed that people are using what they paid for. This is a bait and switch as far as I'm concerned.
Again.. if tying works, then the market for FF should be stagnant.. not growing. Economic theory by the way is just that.. theory. Those that claim to understand it do so to make a profit off of you... otherwise we should have seen this current collapse coming a mile away, yes?
I find your response kind of ironic, because if you couldn't find a job where you wanted to live, it seems you'd be the one benefiting from enjoy universal health care.
How far I live from my job has nothing to do with my health. I sit at a desk all day, and spend 30 minutes commuting each way. I also eat properly to keep my metabolism up and spend about an hour at the gym six days a week. In the nicer weather, I'm also active outside.
It's much easier to control your health; it depends on NO ONE but yourself. Finding a job nearby is difficult; jobs may not pay enough in one city to be able to actually live in said city (NYC is a great example... which is why many people commute from north NJ). You also have to have the timing right, even if you live in an area where an employer does pay enough for you to live nearby (or the reverse.. the employer is located near cheaper housing... but the usually corrilary there is that there are much fewer employers around).
If you don't like the tangent taken, you were of course free not to even bother replying to my last post too, BTW. /. Is a discussion board... and you were the one that took things off topic by talking about national healthcare. If you want more ontopic dicussions, please try to keep your comments on topic then as well.
Oh give it a rest. Type II Diabetes and other obesity related diseases are rising at the same rate as obesity. And just look around; there's a LOT more fat people running around today than 20 years ago. BMI measurements also haven't changed in quite some time.. but our lifestyle sure has.
I'll add to that.. about five tickets in 13 years.
I've had there non-fault accidents:
1. Hit from behind while stopped behind a vehical waiting to make a left turn.
2. Sideswiped by a car that suddently entered my lane without looking.
3. Front passenger side collision caused by a driver at a stop not looking left before making the turn (and she really gunnged it when she decided to go.. but was only look right).
I think you have no business driving, when you clearly fail to understand that 1) it's imposible to keep withing exactly 1 MPH of the limit and 2) that most spediometers are not even accurate to that level and 3) the measuring device at the wheel isn't accurate enough to properly determine speed.
Even tire ware affects accuracy considerably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#Error
It has nothing to do with not being able to controlyour car; it has to do with not being able to control your car precisely enough to always be at the legal limit.
And lets be real here; speed limits aren't about safety, they are about revenue generation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_percentile_rule
http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf
The problem is that the safest speed limits obey the 85th-percential rule. If 85th percentile are driving 75 or under, what is your justification to ticket them? What you propose is mostly what we have now.. the problem of course is that the hard limits are maniuplated to 1) generate revenue for the state 2) generate revenue for insurance companies.
The other problem with your solution is that you can never have perfect enforcement (well, not without crushing costs). Of course if we COULD get perfect enforcement... maybe that would wake up enough people to DEMAND speed limits be set properly.
It's evil in that you are hurting the whole of society, including your child.
Self-preservation isn't evil. Also, it's not hurting the "whole of society" if society chose to be vaccinated.. my own stupidity (note that I DO think vaccines are a good idea.. just don't think FORCING them is) may affect me and my family, but it's really no one else's business.
It's selfish becasue it's based on a belief that is wrong, but the person refuises to acknowledge the fact to support their ideology.
The only point I'm aruging is that it should be up to the parents to choose what's best for them and their family. I think it's pretty much a given that we DON'T want society to dictate how you raise your kids, right? Honestly, if you think it's your job to override the parent's wishes for the safety of the child, we really shouldn't let ANY parents keep their children, since 90% of all sexual abuse cases are family members molesting the child, not a stranger. So from that point of view, they'd be better off with strangers.
The tiny risk from a vaccines is nothing compared to the result of no vaccines for people.
I never said I was against vaccines or people getting them. I'm against people forcing others to take a risk with a kid that isn't theirs. I believe that stupid people should be allowed to suffer the full consequences of their stupidity.
Remember, it's not just that your child might be sick, it's also that your child is now a vector for mutation of a disease, getting one of these diseases and dying.
And what's the risk that our drugs ONLY leave drug-resistent strains of the virus around? I'd say the risk of this is as small as the risks involved in vaccinating to begin with.
Again, you are risking other people and your children FAR more by not getting vaccinated.
It is mean, evil, and ignorant beyond belief to intentionally leave them open to the risk of these diseases.
And it's not evil to force your will upon others? What if there's a religous objection to vaccination? If you're fine with staying "tough shit" then I think that opens up religion to all sorts of other attacks. People have been using religion to oppress people for centuries. Personally I'd love nothing more than for organized religion to vanish.. but I'm not going to force it out of people either.
Drat. Now you all know viruses can use computers... ;-)
I think they were in past games. One can only hope a return though!
Well, that's a no brainer. Pick Attractive and Intelligent; the crazy ones are always more fun.
You said it when you assumed that by not giving Iowans disproportionate representation, that people in big cities would be telling Iowans how to live their lives. If you assume Iowans are not exercising their disproportionate influence to receive disproportionate benefits from the federal government, then there is no reason to assume that city centers would do so either if voting was made equitable among all citizens (as opposed to among pieces of geography).
It's not disproprotionate; it's setup so that 100 people aren't tramped on by the wishes of 100,000. That's what each state gets EQUAL representation in the Senate. There, population doesn't matter. Of course there's a problem now with direct election of Senators; now now state GOVERNMENT is represeted in the Federal government.. which is why the feds have been scooping up the power since then.
Of course the larger states only give concessions to the smaller states when they need something of the smaller states; that's how things should be. Instead of dictating, larger states are forced to compromise, and partake in quid pro quo. If the larger states don't want to give more money to the smaller states, they need to stop asking for things the smaller states may not want... which again would put the power back into the state, not the feds.
Regarding Vermont, you're right, I was mistaken. Amend that to Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, etc. then for the small states that forced this inequitable result.
Sorry, did NJ, DE and NH hold a gun to the larger states head? Looking at it from the smaller states side... why would NJ, DE or NH WANT to join a union where they will promptly be ignored precisely because they ARE smaller? Would you ever enter into a completely one-sided contract? I doubt it.
I agreed it was a bad analogy.. but I'm also not going to overlook your push for national healthcare.
And yes, the reason health care costs are rising so rapidly is obesity, which is a lifestyle choice:
"Since 1987, diseases associated with obesity account for 27% of the increases in medical costs."
http://www.cdc.gov/NCCdphp/publications/AAG/obesity.htm
Clearly obesity is a huge, driving force in healthcare costs, and those costs are rising everyday.
My employment isn't, because I can't force local companies to hire me, or I may not be able to afford to live where the work actually is.
Good point! Give me all your money. Now. I don't give a damn about your family that I don't know. I want MY friends and family to have money.
You're welcome to try and come take it from me. What is your point with this, really? You're suprised I'm not going to hand over my money to you? Really?
Call me selfish, then. I'm also collecting tax money from you to fund my kids' schools. I'm a right bastard, aren't I?
Yup.. since I didn't get a say in how many kids you had, if you're going to have more, what school they go to, how much time they spend studying, what they eat and a host of other things that are effectively out of my control. But if you want to insist I pay for your kids school, I'm going to insist they are raised a certain way.
Let's start with making schools boarding schools, so you don't interfere with their education in any way, or waste time passing your religous beliefs to them.. that's time better spent learning math as far as I'm concerned.
Well, what are you worried about? You got your shot right?
Huh? Since when is it evil to care about your family over someone whom you don't know? Seriously, I could give a damn about a family I don't know. I want MY friends and family to survive.
I can also argue that you're being selfish; forcing one person to get a vaccine, for which you acknowledge a risk, for their kid so YOURS isn't in risk. THAT is selfish; expecting someone else to risk their kid for yours.
If you don't get your lexus, at worst you don't have a car.
And possiblly not have a job, since we don't have reliable public transportation everyone, or affordable housing new places of employment.
Your neighbor doesn't get the health care she needs, she dies.
Oh well. People die all the time. Given the obesity rate, she's probably obese, and clearly doesn't care if she lives. That's what's lacking in all this nonsense about national health care. There's no requirement for people to step up and take responsiblity for their own bad choices... but yet I get stuck with the bill when some fatass gets diabetes.
So please, spare me the "so and so will DIE without healthcare." So and so needs take responsiblity for her own life and wellbeing, and stop whining that everyone else should do it for her.
I wish people would stop making analogies on slashdot, as they're invariably awful.
Well, here I agree with you.
IMHO - yes. Then I'd know I can only do 65, instead of wondering if 70 is "probably" okay, but maybe not, but maybe it is, but who knows? I prefer certainty. If it turns-out that arresting people are 66 is too stringent, then solution is to rewrite the laws to make them effective, not to just ignore them or apply them randomly.
Um, no. You'd likely get a ticket just for not letting off the gas enough going downhill. Clearly stupid. Laws which are ignored to be stricken; it's obvious people don't want them, and that they fail to reconize human behavior.
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
Well, I'm sure we could catch thieves and murders if we just allowed police to randomly search houses too. That doesn't justify making petty criminals out of almost everyone else.
Actually, the practical difference is pretty simple. If I steal a car, I am depriving the original owner of the property.
If I steal software, I'm depriving a faceless, soulless, underhanded company of a few bucks.
So... it's ok to steal a car right off the assembly line, since you're only "depriving a faceless, soulless, underhanded company of a few bucks"?
Where did you see me say that Iowa should tell people in cities how they should live either? The federal government should be small and do very little, and then only things that benefit all the states. A common defense, roads, etc. Everything else should be left to the states.
Apparently the larger colonies felt the smaller states were important enough to include in the Union. It also fits our Founders beliefs on rights; it's not a sumation game, where my rights plus someone elses rights are greater than your rights (which is what democracy is, by the way, and the reason why specifically didn't built a democratic state).
You should really really brush up on your history; Vermont didn't exist as an independent state until AFTER the Union had been formed. I doubt they would have joined (nor would the other smaller colonies) had the Constitution not been setup the way it is.
People don't vote because people are generally lazy and apathetic about things outside their immediate sphere of reference. Which is not to say that they don't have opinions about things outside their sphere--they just don't do anything about those opinions.
Sounds like a really, really good reason for the State to have more power than the Federal government.
Yes, there's a very good reason a voter in Iowa should receive a bigger say; when it affects their state. Why should people in big cities tell Iowans how to live their life? The federal government affects Iowa, and just because there's more people in CA and NY doesn't give people in CA and NY the right to dictate to IA.