The only thing that makes it believable is the rash of other outrageous -- I will go so far as to say stupid -- Supreme Court decisions recently. I won't go into those...
Did it occur to you that there could be natural-born citizens who don't speak English well? In some parts of Houston there are households where the children aren't exposed to anything but Vietnamese until they enter public school. I'm sure there are pockets of natural-born citizens across our country who speak English only as a second language. Should they not have the same voting rights as you? What about illiterate people? Should they not be allowed to vote?
Hypothesis: The health care bill imposes mandatory health care insurance on every citizen.
Experiment: Read the bill.
Observations: The bill no more imposes mandatory health care coverage than the existing tax code mandates that you have children and own a home. If you don't have health coverage, you are taxed more. If you don't have children, you are taxed more. If you rent instead of own, you are taxed more. These are not the same as a bills of attainder.
Conclusion: I like feeding trolls.
Most of the healthcare bill is about setting out guidelines for existing insurance companies, as well as establishing a national exchange program for them. These companies are all involved in interstate trade, consequently the most constitutionally valid place for such regulations is at the federal level.
Because if we don't send them to school we lose a good portion of the working populace. One or the other parent would have to stay at home with the kids.
Line item veto? The president doesn't have that authority. Clinton had it for a little while, but Rudy Giuliani took it all the way to the Supreme Court to have it declared unconstitutional.
According to the NPR story on this, the US companies worked a little differently. The insurance companies would pay the private firefighters a bounty for putting out the fires. It was more of a macho/community pride thing. Don't know how true it is though. It seems just as likely that rival firefighters would have started fires just to be the first to arrive and put it out.
It's even worse than you think. Not only does the legal system not care about properly fining people for falsely claiming infringement with DMCA takedown notices, it also fails to enforce the penalties for fraudulent copyright statements on non-copyrighted works.
Go to any standards organization (e.g. NFPA, API, ANSI, IEEE, ASTM) and buy any workbook or standard that has a sample blank form for data entry. You will see a copyright notice on that blank form. In fact, they will gladly sell you these blank forms by the hundreds and never tell you you're wasting your money. Blank forms are NOT covered by copyright. Yet these organizations are allowed to put fraudulent notices on the forms, and sell these forms to unsuspecting consumers (corporations, electricians, consultants, etc.) who are collectively getting fleeced out of millions of dollars per year.
I have personally contacted various government agencies about the problem, but the answer is either "not my department" or "If you are the owner of the copyright, take them to court" (which of course misses the point that this is not a copyrightable work). The punchline is that there's not any mechanism for the US Copyright Office to enforce this particular law in the public interest.
I even tried to notify people with such notices on their blank forms. They think I'm just being an asshat and ignore me.
Texas is top-free? Really? Yet we still have cops in Houston that harass mothers for breastfeeding in public. What a shame. I'll bet the article is NSFW, but I'll check it out later.
ummm... Turkey has a secular government. They've tried very hard to keep it that way. They're not "Islamic," and they haven't "evolved to modern standards." The Ottoman Empire was arguably at the pinnacle of modern standards back before WWI. And back then their legal system was (at least partially) based on sharia law.
It's even worse that that. He didn't offer to make good on $75, he said "he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out." And they STILL wouldn't come out. That's just stupid.
Read the article again. He didn't just offer to pay $75. He told the operator "he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out." That is completely different than just offering to pay the fee.
Just because its legal doesn't make it moral. Why wouldn't they just show up, fight the fire, and then charge him the complete cost of fighting the fire? That's the way ambulances and hospitals work. I'm sure the insurance company would much rather pay that than the cost of building him a new home.
What's scary is that Glenn Beck thinks this is a good thing. I don't even think he realizes this event is a pretty damning example of what's wrong with Tea Party mentality (lower taxes, smaller government). Remember, this is what comes from smaller government. Some things that should be handled for the public good are reduced or even eliminated. And yes, fighting the "bubba" fire would have been in the public good. Had the firefighters stopped the blaze before it got out of hand, the neighbor's house would have remained untouched. Further, this man will have to get his replacement goods from somewhere, probably churches and charities. That will reduce the available resources the charities have to take care of other people. (If you'd like to argue that this is good for the economy, please don't)
Two questions, though: Why in the world would an insurance company even cover somebody who hadn't opted-in to fire protection? Can the neighbor sue the fire department for the damage to his house that could have been prevented but for their inaction?
You'd be surprised how little Americans even know about each other. In the 90's I was visiting DC. When I mentioned to somebody that I went to high school in Texas, they asked about what it was like riding a horse to school each day. Seriously.
Hell, if these guys are anti-Twitter, where do I sign up? I've had to stop watching CNN thanks to their inane reading of random Twitter posts. All the networks seem to be headed that way. It's the ultimate "man on the street" routine. So much information, so little intellect.
Unfortunately you are wrong. There has already been one case of this discussed on slashdot. MLB took people to the cleaners, revoking access to view games people had already paid to watch. No refunds issued. A few hardcore fans got upset, but the public "outcry" was non-existent.
Time after time, companies change their end of the bargain, but the public just shrugs and pays more.I know people who loose access to the occasional iTunes file, and rather than revoking all the permissions for that file and starting over, they just go download it again and shell out another $0.99 to Apple. These are the consumers you think will exhibit some outrage at a media company deciding to revoke access to something they're probably only going to watch once in a blue moon? Not likely.
That substitution mentality can be carried to extremes, with strange results. I used to know some Bible-thumpers who would say things like "Gloryhallelujah!" or "Thankya Jeezus!" when they stubbed their toe or smacked their finger with a hammer. I found that more offensive than just saying some expletive. It was like they were purposely rewiring their brain or something. Seriously, why would you praise God for hurting yourself? It's just bizarre.
Other bywords I find more offensive: "poo-hole" for "asshole" and "fornicate" for "fuck."
Slashdot Mirror
Our electronic circuits prof always used 3.14 as the answer. But he'd throw in the occasional 1.73 or 2.72 just for fun. (root 3 and e).
I had professors who simply gave every student the chance to bring a note sheet to the exam.
One 8-12x11" sheet of paper. Both sides. Put whatever you want on it.
I'd put a netbook on it. Problem solved.
I think in this case "work with them" means, "If you stop pestering us, we won't shut off your connection to youtube."
The only thing that makes it believable is the rash of other outrageous -- I will go so far as to say stupid -- Supreme Court decisions recently. I won't go into those...
Christine O'Donnell, is that you?
Did it occur to you that there could be natural-born citizens who don't speak English well? In some parts of Houston there are households where the children aren't exposed to anything but Vietnamese until they enter public school. I'm sure there are pockets of natural-born citizens across our country who speak English only as a second language. Should they not have the same voting rights as you? What about illiterate people? Should they not be allowed to vote?
Don't you realize that the ultimate terrorist might be a goddamn Gook. Stop being such a racist!
Mods, before marking me as flamebait, please Google "ultimate terrorist goddamn Gook."
Hypothesis: The health care bill imposes mandatory health care insurance on every citizen.
Experiment: Read the bill.
Observations: The bill no more imposes mandatory health care coverage than the existing tax code mandates that you have children and own a home. If you don't have health coverage, you are taxed more. If you don't have children, you are taxed more. If you rent instead of own, you are taxed more. These are not the same as a bills of attainder.
Conclusion: I like feeding trolls.
Most of the healthcare bill is about setting out guidelines for existing insurance companies, as well as establishing a national exchange program for them. These companies are all involved in interstate trade, consequently the most constitutionally valid place for such regulations is at the federal level.
Because if we don't send them to school we lose a good portion of the working populace. One or the other parent would have to stay at home with the kids.
Line item veto? The president doesn't have that authority. Clinton had it for a little while, but Rudy Giuliani took it all the way to the Supreme Court to have it declared unconstitutional.
According to the NPR story on this, the US companies worked a little differently. The insurance companies would pay the private firefighters a bounty for putting out the fires. It was more of a macho/community pride thing. Don't know how true it is though. It seems just as likely that rival firefighters would have started fires just to be the first to arrive and put it out.
It's even worse than you think. Not only does the legal system not care about properly fining people for falsely claiming infringement with DMCA takedown notices, it also fails to enforce the penalties for fraudulent copyright statements on non-copyrighted works.
Go to any standards organization (e.g. NFPA, API, ANSI, IEEE, ASTM) and buy any workbook or standard that has a sample blank form for data entry. You will see a copyright notice on that blank form. In fact, they will gladly sell you these blank forms by the hundreds and never tell you you're wasting your money. Blank forms are NOT covered by copyright. Yet these organizations are allowed to put fraudulent notices on the forms, and sell these forms to unsuspecting consumers (corporations, electricians, consultants, etc.) who are collectively getting fleeced out of millions of dollars per year.
I have personally contacted various government agencies about the problem, but the answer is either "not my department" or "If you are the owner of the copyright, take them to court" (which of course misses the point that this is not a copyrightable work). The punchline is that there's not any mechanism for the US Copyright Office to enforce this particular law in the public interest.
I even tried to notify people with such notices on their blank forms. They think I'm just being an asshat and ignore me.
Texas is top-free? Really? Yet we still have cops in Houston that harass mothers for breastfeeding in public. What a shame. I'll bet the article is NSFW, but I'll check it out later.
ummm... Turkey has a secular government. They've tried very hard to keep it that way. They're not "Islamic," and they haven't "evolved to modern standards." The Ottoman Empire was arguably at the pinnacle of modern standards back before WWI. And back then their legal system was (at least partially) based on sharia law.
I make a lot of ANSI B drawings, so my 1680x1050 is pretty close to perfect. (1.6 vs 1.5454)
It's even worse that that. He didn't offer to make good on $75, he said "he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out." And they STILL wouldn't come out. That's just stupid.
Read the article again. He didn't just offer to pay $75. He told the operator "he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out." That is completely different than just offering to pay the fee.
Just because its legal doesn't make it moral. Why wouldn't they just show up, fight the fire, and then charge him the complete cost of fighting the fire? That's the way ambulances and hospitals work. I'm sure the insurance company would much rather pay that than the cost of building him a new home.
What's scary is that Glenn Beck thinks this is a good thing. I don't even think he realizes this event is a pretty damning example of what's wrong with Tea Party mentality (lower taxes, smaller government). Remember, this is what comes from smaller government. Some things that should be handled for the public good are reduced or even eliminated. And yes, fighting the "bubba" fire would have been in the public good. Had the firefighters stopped the blaze before it got out of hand, the neighbor's house would have remained untouched. Further, this man will have to get his replacement goods from somewhere, probably churches and charities. That will reduce the available resources the charities have to take care of other people. (If you'd like to argue that this is good for the economy, please don't)
Two questions, though: Why in the world would an insurance company even cover somebody who hadn't opted-in to fire protection? Can the neighbor sue the fire department for the damage to his house that could have been prevented but for their inaction?
Irony is subjective. Almost anything can be considered ironic or not based on a point of view.
English is not a programming language.
Yes it is. ENGLISH
Is that ironic?
High praise indeed! I'm pretty sure I came up with it.
You'd be surprised how little Americans even know about each other. In the 90's I was visiting DC. When I mentioned to somebody that I went to high school in Texas, they asked about what it was like riding a horse to school each day. Seriously.
Why not? Wire cutters are illegal in Austin.
Hell, if these guys are anti-Twitter, where do I sign up? I've had to stop watching CNN thanks to their inane reading of random Twitter posts. All the networks seem to be headed that way. It's the ultimate "man on the street" routine. So much information, so little intellect.
Unfortunately you are wrong. There has already been one case of this discussed on slashdot. MLB took people to the cleaners, revoking access to view games people had already paid to watch. No refunds issued. A few hardcore fans got upset, but the public "outcry" was non-existent.
Time after time, companies change their end of the bargain, but the public just shrugs and pays more.I know people who loose access to the occasional iTunes file, and rather than revoking all the permissions for that file and starting over, they just go download it again and shell out another $0.99 to Apple. These are the consumers you think will exhibit some outrage at a media company deciding to revoke access to something they're probably only going to watch once in a blue moon? Not likely.
That substitution mentality can be carried to extremes, with strange results. I used to know some Bible-thumpers who would say things like "Gloryhallelujah!" or "Thankya Jeezus!" when they stubbed their toe or smacked their finger with a hammer. I found that more offensive than just saying some expletive. It was like they were purposely rewiring their brain or something. Seriously, why would you praise God for hurting yourself? It's just bizarre.
Other bywords I find more offensive: "poo-hole" for "asshole" and "fornicate" for "fuck."
WTF does "Raspberries" stand for?