I don't mind my desktop or laptop hooked up via IPv6.
I do mind my fridge or power grid hooked up and controllable via IPvVERSION_NUMBER. I really don't need another reason to find my fridge doors suddenly full of ads, or my freezer's ice cube trays suddenly melted, or my bedroom suddenly ill-HVAC'd, or my Northeast US suddenly dark...yet again...
This is one of those lessons that lots of people are just going to have to learn the hard way. A lot of completely predictable, entirely preventable problems are like that. Isn't our species great?
That default password jazz is something I wish manufacturers would get away from, even if a solution is a hard reset and the user selects a password all over again.
If it makes you feel better, I recently bought a wireless router from a major manufacturer. I plug it in, connect it to my computer, go to http://192.168.1.1/ and fine-tuned all the settings to be just the way I want, particularly those involving setting my own passwords (on the router's administration and on the secure wifi network). Everything nice and neatly set up. That's the first thing I did as soon as I took it out of the box because I try not to be an irresponsible douchebag.
I run my own local caching DNS server. I don't own a domain. I just use it to resolve hostnames because it's more reliable than my ISP's. Imagine my surprise when I found that my router's UNDOCUMENTED "first-use" behavior was to hijack all DNS traffic. Suddenly google.com resolved as 192.168.1.1 and so did every other domain. With my own DNS server on my statically-configured machine (not proxying DNS through the router like its DHCP settings for attached clients would direct). The router was actually intercepting and hijacking UDP port 53 traffic.
Apparently they do this so that irresponsible dumb users can't go to any Web site without first accessing the router's configuration page. Nevermind that I had already done the configuration. Nevermind that irresponsible dumb users tend not to have statically (thus, manually) assigned network information. Nevermind that irresponsible dumb users tend to just use their ISP's dns servers by proxying DNS through the router (shows 192.168.1.1 as DNS server) instead of running their own. Nevermind that this was mentioned nowhere in the documentation.
The default passwords were at least unique if not particularly secure. But this company was definitely proactive against the "turning irresponsible people loose with unchanged default settings" tendency. To the point of hassling someone who, in multiple detectable ways, does not use the device that way.
Remember business people... "The customer is always right."
That is probably the most often quoted falsehood in all of business.
Customers are frequently wrong, and sometimes their actions are outright hostile.
Up to a certain point, it can be beneficial to overlook that in order to maintain good relations. The long term benefits may be worth taking a short term hit.
Beyond that point, the correct response is to dump that customer as quickly and cheaply as you can manage. Ideally, you at least do it with no hard feelings, but sometimes even telling them bluntly to shove it is justified.
Unreasonable people often think that a little authority, such as "I'm the customer!" will make them magically become reasonable without ever going through the effort of evaluating their ideas and rejecting the ones that make no sense
Anyone who has ever been young and worked an entry-level job that involved customer service knows this. I sincerely believe businesses are encouraging stupidity by ever accommodating such people. If no one did so, no business would feel a need to do so in order to remain competitive. One could almost argue it's a form of tragedy of the commons (inasmuch as a given marketplace is "common" to all participants), in that Business A knows it better tolerate such stupidity because the competition would.
Then, I will fetch a fucking _book_, find the information by myself, and share it online, as everyone has been doing since the dawn of internet. Shit, it's true that using the internet makes people less inteligent.
Not necessarily. That's more true for users who think the Internet (I assume you mean the Web) is for passive consumption of corporate-owned one-to-many content, like television. Other users appreciate that it's a two-way many-to-many communications medium and take a much more proactive stance on how it should be used. If anything, those users are sharpening their skills and their ability to think and reason. They tend also to realize that their systems retrieve only the information they are configured to retrieve, not someone else's idea of "programming" content, hence the selective downloading based on desirability that ad-blockers help to achieve.
Then YOU get to ask YOURSELF whether YOU want to take the risk of running THEIR scripts on YOUR system in order to read/watch THEIR content.
Of course Javascript is limited to accessing THEIR content. Anything else on YOUR system is out of reach of Javascript.
But I've found that the sites that run scripts usually don't have much content worth my time.
Then you aren't using much in the way of Web 2.0 sites. Most of the interactive web-sites since Google Maps are unavailable to you. Hope you like the 1990s.
I'm all for blocking ads. But disabling Javascript altogether is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The point of NoScript is not do disable Javascript alltogether. The standard browser settings include a checkbox to disable Javascript entirely for all sites. That isn't what the add-on NoScript is for. NoScript is there to selectively disable the scripts that you decide are unnecessary.
I wish people who actively choose to comment on a thing would take a moment to acquire the most basic familiarity with that thing. It would lead to far fewer redundant posts and far fewer posters who are convinced they've pointed out the "obvious flaw" that no one else was smart enough to ever think of...
If you use a modern and updated browser, scripts don't pose a "risk" as you state. Still the original question remains: How can you use a scripted site with scripts disabled?
By selectively enabling just the scripts that facilitate the content you want to see and keeping all the rest disabled. Which is exactly what NoScript is designed to do.
Did you put even a moment's thought into this prior to posting a comment? It does not appear like you did.
Same-sex and weed have fuck all to do with establishing standards of measurement.
You saw all the trees and asked where the forest is. That happens far too often on this site because too many of you want to find fault with the other guy so you can feel clever.
The (slightly) abstract principle here is that overcoming inertia in order to effect change is often difficult no matter what that change may be or how overdue it is. That's what the otherwise unrelated issues of same-sex couples, legalization of marijuana, and implementing the metric system all have in common. You'd have noticed that if you were looking for it.
As a consumer, please keep in mind your credit card provides strong protection from FRAUD. When you call the bank and charge back, you are accusing someone of fraud.
Or (unrealted to the Target hacks) of having an unreasonable returns policy that is not consistent with what the sales guy promised. So yes, I suppose that is fraud, though incompetence is a more likely explanation.
In the 1700s is was possible to be pretty knowledgeable about all the technology of the day. Today it just isn't.
No, but it is abundantly possible to say "hey, I am not knowledgable about this subject, so perhaps I should avoid forming any snap judgments until such time as I inform myself (not rely on anyone else to do it for you)". It takes such a slight amount of humility to recognize that your own ignorance is not equivalent to someone else's skill and knowledge, that to do otherwise is simply a severe character flaw.
Call me when a bill to this effect has some chance of passing, otherwise I am not interested. There is no idea so dumb or ill-informed that there isn't going to be some politician, somewhere, proposing it. That doesn't mean anyone else in that legislature takes it seriously, possibly even the proposer isn't serious and is just mouthing off for political reasons.
True.
This just isn't worth anyone's time to read about.
False. When politicians say stupid shit, it's our duty to mock them for it. Otherwise, that stupid shit starts making it into actual laws. (Sometimes it does that anyway.)
If it does that anyway, it's because there is a monied interest behind it. All the more reason to mock and ridicule it as it deserves, or else that monied interest won't view that form of stupidity in the desirable terms of "wow, backing this could cost me a lot of profits".
This. I see too often people argue that something is not worthwhile discussing because it is so obviously idiotic, wrong, racist or god knows what else. They want to ignore it, make it illegal or somehow push it underground. That always makes things worse.
The only cure for stupidity is wisdom, knowledge or public mockery. Indeed, please continue.
The root of that problem is a particular form of arrogance or ego-centrism. The form is: it is so ridiculous *to me* because I understand what's wrong with it, that no one else will ever be persuaded by it, so there is no reason to expend the minimal effort it would take to nip it in the bud...
The Prohibition of alcohol happened this way. The Al Capones of the world were thankful.
Until and unless it happens too infrequently and there is far too much widespread, low-hanging fuel laying around in the form of ignorance. Then it engulfs and destroys many thousands of acres like the California-style forest fires and does much more harm than good.
Funny, YOU'RE abusing language you don't understand.
"and it's replacement"? Think about it - the expanded version of what you wrote is "and it is replacement". Clearly the contraction is not appropriate and you should have used its, as in "and its replacement". It amazes me how easy it is to work out which version of it's vs its to use, and yet so many people fuck it up.
Fucking up easy, simple-to-understand, basic things is a fine American tradition, you insensitive clod!
Really though this one isn't caused by a lack of knowledge. If you were to test that person on it and tell them that they would win $500,000 dollars if they get it right, they will get it right. This problem is caused by a lack of even the slightest discipline. You know, the kind you have even when no one is looking. The real kind.
The cost isn't hidden. I pay the same as cash. If you, as a cash buyer, don't like it, don't shop somewhere that takes credit cards. You have free choice. The fact that you are too spineless to exercise your "freedom" just shows you are a hypocrite.
As someone who has never seen an established business that does not take credit cards of some sort, I have to say: it is far too easy and tempting, for some, to puff up with pride and look down your nose at someone for failing to exercise an option that doesn't really exist. Easier than admitting that maybe he had a point, at any rate.
The number of businesses you can drive up to and shop in that do not accept credit cards of any kind is a rounding error in the face of all the business transactions made. You know this. Can you admit it?
It can't be politicians saying "You must vote for me or I'll cut off your food stamps" because we have a secret ballot. The most that could be done is "if you stop putting me in, the Republicans will probably cut off everybody's food stamps, including yours"...but that applies to every public-spending decision.
It's simply that voters who receive benefits from one party tend to continue voting for the party that gave the benefits to them. Especially when occasional yet regular promises are made to increase those benefits. Also, the scanario you mentioned there ("vote for me, because the other guy won't give you as much as I do!"). It doesn't help that welfare is designed to be difficult to get off of.
It really doesn't help when there are only two parties with any chance to win, constantly forcing voters into these "lesser of two evils" compromises. For some, the benefits they have come to depend on will be, from their point of view, the lesser of evils. "Good cop, bad cop" is a game the Demicans and Republicrats play because it works. It's like wireless carriers that all overcharge for text messaging instead of competing with each other: they all increase profits that way and it's in the interest of each to not rock the boat. The Democrats and Republicans aren't actually competing for votes. They're segmenting voters.
You wind up with politicians who might not be in power at all except for their ability to addict people to their vote-buying scheme. The only purpose of all the deceit and manipulation is to retain power in a scenario where being honest would mean losing elections. A ruler does this; a civil servant does not. These strategies work because they're subtle. The best way to sort that out is to look at who actually benefits from each decision ("qui bono?").
i can see real medical uses for this as well, but having this sold at retail will just fill up emergency rooms and doctor offices with hypochondriacs wondering why their heart rate is.0001% above last week's
Funny. It the world I live in, I had to explain to my doctor that the 1% change in my total cholesterol had more to do with the time of day my blood was taken than changes I'd made during the entire previous year. I've no idea why she focused on my total level, since the test listed HDL and LDL.
In the debate on giving patients more information, I don't agree with the doctors. I've had to diagnose the majority of my health problems (all later confirmed by the doctor), because most doctors don't take the time to ask the right questions. Without some research, I don't know that one of fifty different things happening to me is relevant.
I think my favorite time was when another doctor in an annoyed voice said, "Your self diagnosis is correct. You do have a hernia." I would have loved to been wrong about that one.
It sounds as though medicine is like everything else: you have a better experience when you take a little initiative and work _with_ the experts instead of being completely passive, waiting for someone else to do absolutely everything for you.
OMG, such an effort to wait the 15 minutes to preheat an oven. and how much are you going to pay in utility costs to have your oven on while you're commuting home? and how hard is it to notice that you only have say 2 eggs left.
I propose the following term for those who really want this: mental obesity.
the American people have said "fuck you" to you crazies loud and clear last time Ron Paul tried to run
If by that you mean he was outnumbered, drastically out-spent, and idiotically complex laws were used to prevent him from even being on the ballot in many areas, then yes indeedy, the American people gave him a great big "fuck you". But I'm sure he got a fair shake.
(Access to contraception will take away the risk from casual sex, leading to a world of rampant promiscuity, cohabitation and the collapse of the instutition of marriage.)
There are *plenty* of monogamous, married couples who also wish to use birth control.
It reminds me of the mentality behind the idiotic prohibition of drugs. There is always a cover reason, the way it is sold to the public, but then there is the real and actual reason: this insane and insecure desire to tell other adult people how they should live.
And this is why I think ObamaCare is doomed to fail.
I would have been 100% on board if they said everyone had to be covered by some sort of catastrophic plan and that it would be subsidized in some form for the extremely poor and destitute. If you want to pay more to get more coverage, go right ahead.
I sincerely believe that ACA is designed to fail. It's a stepping stone towards the single-payer system that the progressives really want, only they know it would be difficult or impossible to directly sell that to the American people, so they use these drawn-out tactics. And in the meantime the insurance companies get a nice hefty kickback so you also have multibillion dollar industries behind its stated purposes, making it politically feasible.
Those who have never played and understood chess, never made multi-part long-term plans of their own, etc., are fairly simpleminded and think that politicians would never, ever, ever do things this way. That's one of the biggest reasons why Americans have the sort of government they have.
They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks.
Would you include the govt. as one of those large organizations? Kinda worrisome when you realize govt. tends to have a monopoly on force.
Government is the very prototype from which the rest learn the methods of control. Force is but one way to control and manipulate. For example, a favorite tactic the US federal government uses to manipulate the states requires no direct force at all. They tax the citizens of a state and then offer to give them their own money back if and only if they behave as desired. Few states can meet their budgets without this money and no state can simply print money the way the feds can. It makes them most malleable.
... Viagra coverage for men, too. Only seems fair. If you can't get it up, it must be part of His plan.
Frankly, I've never understood the Church's fanaticism about birth control and sex without conception. I guess their `thinking' is along the lines of what comedian Chris Rush said when he joked (paraphrasing): "Don't you know that when you masturbate you're murdering millions of potential Christians?"
I know what you mean. I've read the Bible and couldn't find anything about contraception anywhere. Except for one guy who was directly commanded by God to impregnate a specfic woman for a specific purpose and decided to pull out ("spill his seed on the ground")... but there was nothing even suggesting that this should apply to everyone universally.
I wish they had such hang-ups about violence instead, and left sex alone. That might actually do some good in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mind my desktop or laptop hooked up via IPv6.
I do mind my fridge or power grid hooked up and controllable via IPvVERSION_NUMBER. I really don't need another reason to find my fridge doors suddenly full of ads, or my freezer's ice cube trays suddenly melted, or my bedroom suddenly ill-HVAC'd, or my Northeast US suddenly dark...yet again...
This is one of those lessons that lots of people are just going to have to learn the hard way. A lot of completely predictable, entirely preventable problems are like that. Isn't our species great?
That default password jazz is something I wish manufacturers would get away from, even if a solution is a hard reset and the user selects a password all over again.
If it makes you feel better, I recently bought a wireless router from a major manufacturer. I plug it in, connect it to my computer, go to http://192.168.1.1/ and fine-tuned all the settings to be just the way I want, particularly those involving setting my own passwords (on the router's administration and on the secure wifi network). Everything nice and neatly set up. That's the first thing I did as soon as I took it out of the box because I try not to be an irresponsible douchebag.
I run my own local caching DNS server. I don't own a domain. I just use it to resolve hostnames because it's more reliable than my ISP's. Imagine my surprise when I found that my router's UNDOCUMENTED "first-use" behavior was to hijack all DNS traffic. Suddenly google.com resolved as 192.168.1.1 and so did every other domain. With my own DNS server on my statically-configured machine (not proxying DNS through the router like its DHCP settings for attached clients would direct). The router was actually intercepting and hijacking UDP port 53 traffic.
Apparently they do this so that irresponsible dumb users can't go to any Web site without first accessing the router's configuration page. Nevermind that I had already done the configuration. Nevermind that irresponsible dumb users tend not to have statically (thus, manually) assigned network information. Nevermind that irresponsible dumb users tend to just use their ISP's dns servers by proxying DNS through the router (shows 192.168.1.1 as DNS server) instead of running their own. Nevermind that this was mentioned nowhere in the documentation.
The default passwords were at least unique if not particularly secure. But this company was definitely proactive against the "turning irresponsible people loose with unchanged default settings" tendency. To the point of hassling someone who, in multiple detectable ways, does not use the device that way.
Not anymore. Firefox for instance removed the ability to disable javascript through a simple checkbox.
Heh you're right, they certainly did. I hadn't noticed because I've been using NoScript for so long.
Remember business people... "The customer is always right."
That is probably the most often quoted falsehood in all of business.
Customers are frequently wrong, and sometimes their actions are outright hostile.
Up to a certain point, it can be beneficial to overlook that in order to maintain good relations. The long term benefits may be worth taking a short term hit.
Beyond that point, the correct response is to dump that customer as quickly and cheaply as you can manage. Ideally, you at least do it with no hard feelings, but sometimes even telling them bluntly to shove it is justified.
Unreasonable people often think that a little authority, such as "I'm the customer!" will make them magically become reasonable without ever going through the effort of evaluating their ideas and rejecting the ones that make no sense
Anyone who has ever been young and worked an entry-level job that involved customer service knows this. I sincerely believe businesses are encouraging stupidity by ever accommodating such people. If no one did so, no business would feel a need to do so in order to remain competitive. One could almost argue it's a form of tragedy of the commons (inasmuch as a given marketplace is "common" to all participants), in that Business A knows it better tolerate such stupidity because the competition would.
Then, I will fetch a fucking _book_, find the information by myself, and share it online, as everyone has been doing since the dawn of internet. Shit, it's true that using the internet makes people less inteligent.
Not necessarily. That's more true for users who think the Internet (I assume you mean the Web) is for passive consumption of corporate-owned one-to-many content, like television. Other users appreciate that it's a two-way many-to-many communications medium and take a much more proactive stance on how it should be used. If anything, those users are sharpening their skills and their ability to think and reason. They tend also to realize that their systems retrieve only the information they are configured to retrieve, not someone else's idea of "programming" content, hence the selective downloading based on desirability that ad-blockers help to achieve.
Then YOU get to ask YOURSELF whether YOU want to take the risk of running THEIR scripts on YOUR system in order to read/watch THEIR content.
Of course Javascript is limited to accessing THEIR content. Anything else on YOUR system is out of reach of Javascript.
But I've found that the sites that run scripts usually don't have much content worth my time.
Then you aren't using much in the way of Web 2.0 sites. Most of the interactive web-sites since Google Maps are unavailable to you. Hope you like the 1990s.
I'm all for blocking ads. But disabling Javascript altogether is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The point of NoScript is not do disable Javascript alltogether. The standard browser settings include a checkbox to disable Javascript entirely for all sites. That isn't what the add-on NoScript is for. NoScript is there to selectively disable the scripts that you decide are unnecessary.
I wish people who actively choose to comment on a thing would take a moment to acquire the most basic familiarity with that thing. It would lead to far fewer redundant posts and far fewer posters who are convinced they've pointed out the "obvious flaw" that no one else was smart enough to ever think of...
If you use a modern and updated browser, scripts don't pose a "risk" as you state. Still the original question remains: How can you use a scripted site with scripts disabled?
By selectively enabling just the scripts that facilitate the content you want to see and keeping all the rest disabled. Which is exactly what NoScript is designed to do.
Did you put even a moment's thought into this prior to posting a comment? It does not appear like you did.
Same-sex and weed have fuck all to do with establishing standards of measurement.
You saw all the trees and asked where the forest is. That happens far too often on this site because too many of you want to find fault with the other guy so you can feel clever.
The (slightly) abstract principle here is that overcoming inertia in order to effect change is often difficult no matter what that change may be or how overdue it is. That's what the otherwise unrelated issues of same-sex couples, legalization of marijuana, and implementing the metric system all have in common. You'd have noticed that if you were looking for it.
As a consumer, please keep in mind your credit card provides strong protection from FRAUD. When you call the bank and charge back, you are accusing someone of fraud.
Or (unrealted to the Target hacks) of having an unreasonable returns policy that is not consistent with what the sales guy promised. So yes, I suppose that is fraud, though incompetence is a more likely explanation.
In the 1700s is was possible to be pretty knowledgeable about all the technology of the day. Today it just isn't.
No, but it is abundantly possible to say "hey, I am not knowledgable about this subject, so perhaps I should avoid forming any snap judgments until such time as I inform myself (not rely on anyone else to do it for you)". It takes such a slight amount of humility to recognize that your own ignorance is not equivalent to someone else's skill and knowledge, that to do otherwise is simply a severe character flaw.
Call me when a bill to this effect has some chance of passing, otherwise I am not interested. There is no idea so dumb or ill-informed that there isn't going to be some politician, somewhere, proposing it. That doesn't mean anyone else in that legislature takes it seriously, possibly even the proposer isn't serious and is just mouthing off for political reasons.
True.
This just isn't worth anyone's time to read about.
False. When politicians say stupid shit, it's our duty to mock them for it. Otherwise, that stupid shit starts making it into actual laws. (Sometimes it does that anyway.)
If it does that anyway, it's because there is a monied interest behind it. All the more reason to mock and ridicule it as it deserves, or else that monied interest won't view that form of stupidity in the desirable terms of "wow, backing this could cost me a lot of profits".
This. I see too often people argue that something is not worthwhile discussing because it is so obviously idiotic, wrong, racist or god knows what else. They want to ignore it, make it illegal or somehow push it underground. That always makes things worse.
The only cure for stupidity is wisdom, knowledge or public mockery. Indeed, please continue.
The root of that problem is a particular form of arrogance or ego-centrism. The form is: it is so ridiculous *to me* because I understand what's wrong with it, that no one else will ever be persuaded by it, so there is no reason to expend the minimal effort it would take to nip it in the bud...
The Prohibition of alcohol happened this way. The Al Capones of the world were thankful.
Until and unless it happens too infrequently and there is far too much widespread, low-hanging fuel laying around in the form of ignorance. Then it engulfs and destroys many thousands of acres like the California-style forest fires and does much more harm than good.
Funny, YOU'RE abusing language you don't understand.
"and it's replacement"? Think about it - the expanded version of what you wrote is "and it is replacement". Clearly the contraction is not appropriate and you should have used its, as in "and its replacement". It amazes me how easy it is to work out which version of it's vs its to use, and yet so many people fuck it up.
Fucking up easy, simple-to-understand, basic things is a fine American tradition, you insensitive clod!
Really though this one isn't caused by a lack of knowledge. If you were to test that person on it and tell them that they would win $500,000 dollars if they get it right, they will get it right. This problem is caused by a lack of even the slightest discipline. You know, the kind you have even when no one is looking. The real kind.
The cost isn't hidden. I pay the same as cash. If you, as a cash buyer, don't like it, don't shop somewhere that takes credit cards. You have free choice. The fact that you are too spineless to exercise your "freedom" just shows you are a hypocrite.
As someone who has never seen an established business that does not take credit cards of some sort, I have to say: it is far too easy and tempting, for some, to puff up with pride and look down your nose at someone for failing to exercise an option that doesn't really exist. Easier than admitting that maybe he had a point, at any rate.
The number of businesses you can drive up to and shop in that do not accept credit cards of any kind is a rounding error in the face of all the business transactions made. You know this. Can you admit it?
It can't be politicians saying "You must vote for me or I'll cut off your food stamps" because we have a secret ballot. The most that could be done is "if you stop putting me in, the Republicans will probably cut off everybody's food stamps, including yours"...but that applies to every public-spending decision.
It's simply that voters who receive benefits from one party tend to continue voting for the party that gave the benefits to them. Especially when occasional yet regular promises are made to increase those benefits. Also, the scanario you mentioned there ("vote for me, because the other guy won't give you as much as I do!"). It doesn't help that welfare is designed to be difficult to get off of.
It really doesn't help when there are only two parties with any chance to win, constantly forcing voters into these "lesser of two evils" compromises. For some, the benefits they have come to depend on will be, from their point of view, the lesser of evils. "Good cop, bad cop" is a game the Demicans and Republicrats play because it works. It's like wireless carriers that all overcharge for text messaging instead of competing with each other: they all increase profits that way and it's in the interest of each to not rock the boat. The Democrats and Republicans aren't actually competing for votes. They're segmenting voters.
You wind up with politicians who might not be in power at all except for their ability to addict people to their vote-buying scheme. The only purpose of all the deceit and manipulation is to retain power in a scenario where being honest would mean losing elections. A ruler does this; a civil servant does not. These strategies work because they're subtle. The best way to sort that out is to look at who actually benefits from each decision ("qui bono?").
It sounds to me like a lot of doctors aren't what they're cracked up to be.
All the more reason to work with them and inform yourself at the same time.
i can see real medical uses for this as well, but having this sold at retail will just fill up emergency rooms and doctor offices with hypochondriacs wondering why their heart rate is .0001% above last week's
Funny. It the world I live in, I had to explain to my doctor that the 1% change in my total cholesterol had more to do with the time of day my blood was taken than changes I'd made during the entire previous year. I've no idea why she focused on my total level, since the test listed HDL and LDL. In the debate on giving patients more information, I don't agree with the doctors. I've had to diagnose the majority of my health problems (all later confirmed by the doctor), because most doctors don't take the time to ask the right questions. Without some research, I don't know that one of fifty different things happening to me is relevant. I think my favorite time was when another doctor in an annoyed voice said, "Your self diagnosis is correct. You do have a hernia." I would have loved to been wrong about that one.
It sounds as though medicine is like everything else: you have a better experience when you take a little initiative and work _with_ the experts instead of being completely passive, waiting for someone else to do absolutely everything for you.
OMG, such an effort to wait the 15 minutes to preheat an oven. and how much are you going to pay in utility costs to have your oven on while you're commuting home? and how hard is it to notice that you only have say 2 eggs left.
I propose the following term for those who really want this: mental obesity.
the American people have said "fuck you" to you crazies loud and clear last time Ron Paul tried to run
If by that you mean he was outnumbered, drastically out-spent, and idiotically complex laws were used to prevent him from even being on the ballot in many areas, then yes indeedy, the American people gave him a great big "fuck you". But I'm sure he got a fair shake.
(Access to contraception will take away the risk from casual sex, leading to a world of rampant promiscuity, cohabitation and the collapse of the instutition of marriage.)
There are *plenty* of monogamous, married couples who also wish to use birth control.
It reminds me of the mentality behind the idiotic prohibition of drugs. There is always a cover reason, the way it is sold to the public, but then there is the real and actual reason: this insane and insecure desire to tell other adult people how they should live.
And this is why I think ObamaCare is doomed to fail.
I would have been 100% on board if they said everyone had to be covered by some sort of catastrophic plan and that it would be subsidized in some form for the extremely poor and destitute. If you want to pay more to get more coverage, go right ahead.
I sincerely believe that ACA is designed to fail. It's a stepping stone towards the single-payer system that the progressives really want, only they know it would be difficult or impossible to directly sell that to the American people, so they use these drawn-out tactics. And in the meantime the insurance companies get a nice hefty kickback so you also have multibillion dollar industries behind its stated purposes, making it politically feasible.
Those who have never played and understood chess, never made multi-part long-term plans of their own, etc., are fairly simpleminded and think that politicians would never, ever, ever do things this way. That's one of the biggest reasons why Americans have the sort of government they have.
They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks. Would you include the govt. as one of those large organizations? Kinda worrisome when you realize govt. tends to have a monopoly on force.
Government is the very prototype from which the rest learn the methods of control. Force is but one way to control and manipulate. For example, a favorite tactic the US federal government uses to manipulate the states requires no direct force at all. They tax the citizens of a state and then offer to give them their own money back if and only if they behave as desired. Few states can meet their budgets without this money and no state can simply print money the way the feds can. It makes them most malleable.
Not that I disagree with you, but why should a US Federal Court have any sway over an ethical society?
If there is such a society, it would be outside of US jurisdiction for sure. So no, a US court should have no sway there.
... Viagra coverage for men, too. Only seems fair. If you can't get it up, it must be part of His plan.
Frankly, I've never understood the Church's fanaticism about birth control and sex without conception. I guess their `thinking' is along the lines of what comedian Chris Rush said when he joked (paraphrasing): "Don't you know that when you masturbate you're murdering millions of potential Christians?"
I know what you mean. I've read the Bible and couldn't find anything about contraception anywhere. Except for one guy who was directly commanded by God to impregnate a specfic woman for a specific purpose and decided to pull out ("spill his seed on the ground")... but there was nothing even suggesting that this should apply to everyone universally.
I wish they had such hang-ups about violence instead, and left sex alone. That might actually do some good in the world.