This company provides a valuable service to their customers at a very inexpensive price.
Now that the FDA is involved, its likely 23 and me is done. The companies that run through their regulatory gauntlet will likely offer their services for prices that are an order of magnitude larger than 23 and me did.
It is literally the price of regulation. We're not really paying for health care. We're paying for this regulation and that regulation and this insurance rule and that restriction and the doctor's insurance and the clinic's insurance, and that administrator's porsche (because what good is an administrator that isn't payed the big bucks), and this drug company's kickbacks that lead to the regulatory hurdles and that companies kickback's to local politicians to keep new competitor clinics from opening.
No wonder health care costs a fortune. Pretty soon we'll be paying everyone EXCEPT the Doctors!!
Do you seriously think that the people that work at Monsanto are so nefarious that they would have to study and control the food they eat to be sure it didn't have that intentionally bad stuff they engineered into it? Or might they actually and sincerely believe they're making a better food product?
What I really love is that Anarchy is some boogeyman to be totally feared, at the same time as our current system is so far from Anarchy that it would take literally thousands of changes to the laws of this country to get there.
We are way way closer to total government than we are to no government .
If the investigation is brought on by 3 fires in 5 weeks. Then this testimonial from one of the people who's Model S caught fire, represents the fact that 33% of the people who's cars caught fire do not think the fire was dangerous or a big deal and would purchase another Model S again.
That is, in fact, for this small sample size, statistically valuable.
Yes. Also, they have many serious bad consequences as well. The propensity for male children over female children is leading to a serious imbalance in the sexes that will cause large social problems for China in the future.
I'm not saying, "damn the consequences, coal power for the poor". But I am saying that the idea that we can improve peoples lives without giving them affordable power is a preposterous "nobel savage" myth.
The climate scientists that chastised the environmentalists that are hellbent against Nuclear power have a point. It is our best answer for generating the power the world needs without the greenhouse gas emissions the world does not.
Yep I got smacked by that bogus "No late fees" campaign.
For a measly $8 in late fees they lost a customer and earned someone who detested their company.
Good riddance Blockbuster! You sucked as a company and deserved all the bad things that happened. The fact that you utterly failed to deal with mailed DVD's and streaming is just gravy for the schadenfreude.
"Capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man but its better than anything else that has been tried."
If everyone in the world were still subsistence farming, then we would have equality for all, but it would still be worse than what Capitalism has generated.
Add in the fact that a good portion of the rich, in addition to believing they're more deserving of wealth, have also taken moral and ethical shortcuts to increase that wealth. These ethical and moral lapses are very contrary to charitable giving.
You have to be completely blind to 20th century world history and quite ignorant on top of that, to truly believe that the elimination of religion would actually solve even some of the world's problems.
It is extreme irony that the communications problems of the ACA are partially caused by yet another piece of legislation.
Why is it that when the lawmakers are talking about proposed pieces of legislation, everyone who points up possible unintended consequences of said legislation is shouted down, yet after the law is passed and implemented and those unintended consequences appear, those who argued that they would surely happen are now considered to be at fault for them?????
I do expect the government to be better at regulating than giving out successful contracts for two reasons. First, the government lacks control over the contracted company and cannot directly force the company to be successful. Secondly, the government has a lot more experience regulating as it already regulates many industries.
Wow, those must be some pretty dark rose colored glasses you have on. The list of regulation that government has done extremely poorly is incredibly long.
I'll just give you three examples, copyright, the patent system, and prohibition. Three examples of absolutely abysmal, destructive outcomes from gov't regulation. Sure patents and copyright used to be sensible, but the more experience that gov't got in regulating them, the worse they got. However, prohibition was a debacle from the moment they started it, and its side effects still impact us to this day.
No, I would prefer for the market to determine the value of rare commodities. Then as rare commodities run out, their prices will rise and we'll look for new inexpensive commodities to fill our needs.
The problem is that "part I know" really has nothing to do with subtraction. Subtraction is "what I have", "what is taken away", and "how much is left". That is whet they should teach first graders. "Part I know" vs. "whole" is solving for x. That is algebra and is not the proper thing to teach first graders.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why we can't have "Affordable" care.
This company provides a valuable service to their customers at a very inexpensive price.
Now that the FDA is involved, its likely 23 and me is done. The companies that run through their regulatory gauntlet will likely offer their services for prices that are an order of magnitude larger than 23 and me did.
It is literally the price of regulation. We're not really paying for health care. We're paying for this regulation and that regulation and this insurance rule and that restriction and the doctor's insurance and the clinic's insurance, and that administrator's porsche (because what good is an administrator that isn't payed the big bucks), and this drug company's kickbacks that lead to the regulatory hurdles and that companies kickback's to local politicians to keep new competitor clinics from opening.
No wonder health care costs a fortune. Pretty soon we'll be paying everyone EXCEPT the Doctors!!
Do you seriously think that the people that work at Monsanto are so nefarious that they would have to study and control the food they eat to be sure it didn't have that intentionally bad stuff they engineered into it? Or might they actually and sincerely believe they're making a better food product?
Ok, then, if IBM and Microsoft want to do that, fine.
But I'm not going to have any sympathy when a patent troll takes them for $4 billion on a clearly bogus patent because the system is broken.
What I really love is that Anarchy is some boogeyman to be totally feared, at the same time as our current system is so far from Anarchy that it would take literally thousands of changes to the laws of this country to get there.
We are way way closer to total government than we are to no government .
If the investigation is brought on by 3 fires in 5 weeks. Then this testimonial from one of the people who's Model S caught fire, represents the fact that 33% of the people who's cars caught fire do not think the fire was dangerous or a big deal and would purchase another Model S again.
That is, in fact, for this small sample size, statistically valuable.
Umm, this was caused by a massive Earthquake. It had absolutely nothing to do with climate change at all.
How about cutting the country that got hit by one of the worst Tsunamis in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD some slack.
The Federal Government never, ever thinks a State can do things better. This is driver of a lot of problems we have right now.
Perhaps they could finish fixing health care before they go into overdrive fixing colleges.
Yes. Also, they have many serious bad consequences as well. The propensity for male children over female children is leading to a serious imbalance in the sexes that will cause large social problems for China in the future.
Not necessarily. This story does a good job explaining that many solutions to global warming involve completely turning our backs on the poor.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus//the-great-progressive-reversal/
That is not "no harm, no foul".
I'm not saying, "damn the consequences, coal power for the poor". But I am saying that the idea that we can improve peoples lives without giving them affordable power is a preposterous "nobel savage" myth.
The climate scientists that chastised the environmentalists that are hellbent against Nuclear power have a point. It is our best answer for generating the power the world needs without the greenhouse gas emissions the world does not.
All it takes is will, and force. â¦. You claimed, essentially, that it is not possible.
I think the gp post's intention was to say that its not possible to impose policies to reduce population without embracing tyranny.
Toilet paper shortage solved!!!
You're link is a horrible article, btw. Full of logical fallacy and manipulation. IT's an opinion piece at best.
At least he provided a link.
You just throw out that 400 year doom prediction and let it sit there.
[Citation Please]
Yep I got smacked by that bogus "No late fees" campaign.
For a measly $8 in late fees they lost a customer and earned someone who detested their company.
Good riddance Blockbuster! You sucked as a company and deserved all the bad things that happened. The fact that you utterly failed to deal with mailed DVD's and streaming is just gravy for the schadenfreude.
But yet there is still truth in the expression:
"Capitalism is the worst economic system devised by man but its better than anything else that has been tried."
If everyone in the world were still subsistence farming, then we would have equality for all, but it would still be worse than what Capitalism has generated.
Add in the fact that a good portion of the rich, in addition to believing they're more deserving of wealth, have also taken moral and ethical shortcuts to increase that wealth. These ethical and moral lapses are very contrary to charitable giving.
Such a bullshit response.
You have to be completely blind to 20th century world history and quite ignorant on top of that, to truly believe that the elimination of religion would actually solve even some of the world's problems.
I really like your points.
But for the RIAA to do that they'd have to actually care about music artists.
It is extreme irony that the communications problems of the ACA are partially caused by yet another piece of legislation.
Why is it that when the lawmakers are talking about proposed pieces of legislation, everyone who points up possible unintended consequences of said legislation is shouted down, yet after the law is passed and implemented and those unintended consequences appear, those who argued that they would surely happen are now considered to be at fault for them?????
The government has plenty of laws, too many to list.
FTFY. ;-)
I do expect the government to be better at regulating than giving out successful contracts for two reasons. First, the government lacks control over the contracted company and cannot directly force the company to be successful. Secondly, the government has a lot more experience regulating as it already regulates many industries.
Wow, those must be some pretty dark rose colored glasses you have on. The list of regulation that government has done extremely poorly is incredibly long.
I'll just give you three examples, copyright, the patent system, and prohibition. Three examples of absolutely abysmal, destructive outcomes from gov't regulation. Sure patents and copyright used to be sensible, but the more experience that gov't got in regulating them, the worse they got. However, prohibition was a debacle from the moment they started it, and its side effects still impact us to this day.
Heck forget lower premiums, I'd hand over the keys to a computer so I could take a nap.
No, I would prefer for the market to determine the value of rare commodities. Then as rare commodities run out, their prices will rise and we'll look for new inexpensive commodities to fill our needs.
The problem is that "part I know" really has nothing to do with subtraction. Subtraction is "what I have", "what is taken away", and "how much is left". That is whet they should teach first graders. "Part I know" vs. "whole" is solving for x. That is algebra and is not the proper thing to teach first graders.