I didn't notice at first, but you and me had a conversation over a similarly charged topic yesterday. I just wanted to say, in regard to that, that while I think you were too absolutist, you made several good points, and I hope you don't simply respond with anger to this particular comment.
As much as I think it should be, it is by no means obvious that knowledge of a particular person's current or past locations constitutes a "search or seizure".
Sure it's easier with a database, but police don't need a warrant to go to the coffee shop and as "has Joe Blow been here recently?" nor should they. I think this is a much more genuine debate than most people see it as, although I don't think having complete information of past locations is the same, and thus should be subject to a warrant and judicial oversight. I'm simply pointing out that it's not crazy to consider this merely and extension of what has been happening with location and the police for over 100 years.
The whole concept of how we use banks now is terrible, because it assumes that the net production of energy in the world, and tradeable goods made from it, will increase every single year at a rate faster than interest and most certainly faster than inflation.
As I noted several times, I never said they were the sole reason, but one of the factors. And I also never said that denying them care was the right reaction. The contrary I diagnosed the issue as being their lack of access to other forms of health care.
Why are you working so hard to paint me as a bigot while I try to have rational conversation? I will look for proof and get it notarized if possible. But again, this discussion has little to do with the point that was being made.
As a side note, your hatred for people who aren't like-minded caused you to entirely dismiss relevant and accurate description of an issue and position that actually agrees with yours, (that illegals should not be treated as inhuman). I would carefully consider why that is if I were you, because that is how I have always improved myself as a person, and I feel that others can also accomplish that by doing the same thing.
I didn't mean to imply that it was common place but it has happened. I also did not mean to imply that illegals are solely responsible, it was an example of how the current system is flawed and works against itself.
This is a list of hospitals that have closed ERs because of costs. Again, I am not suggesting illegals are the cause of the problem. I'm suggesting that they represent one of the many factors, primarily because all other avenues of health care access are denied to them.
Next time do some simple Google searching before you simply say someone is wrong.
The point I was making was in reference to the idea that suicide laws would allow some of the currently available "no deny" conditions to be denied based on the premise that the person would no longer be of worth to society, such as someone who is completely paralyzed. (Not that I think that makes someone worthless but rather that a government entity could argue the utility of that person.)
All of that was in reference to the OP in this thread. Taken as a whole, we surely kill people now based on their ability to pay, but that represents a core truth: we do not have the technology and/or resources to treat everyone who contracts certain conditions, and we must find some way to either improve our ability to treat these things (which we do now with medical research) or to intelligently decide where to allocate those resources.
Insurance/money is a poor way of doing that, but within our society makes some sense. Using $2 million worth of human effort and resources to extend someone's life by six months may not be in the best interests of the rest of society, as dystopian as that seems.
For all of its failings, in the United States a hospital is required to do anything within their power short of "experimental procedures" to stabilize a person, regardless of their ability to pay, legal status, race, gender, or status as a wanted criminal. This doesn't help with things like cancer or such, as treatments for the cause are all experimental, and the treatments for the symptoms are superficial.
But if you are say, in a car crash and suffer nerve damage, the ER will attempt to save your nerves before they check your insurance. Basically, in the United States, you cannot be denied treatment for conditions for which we understand the root cause because of your ability to pay. And this fact has actually caused ERs in some parts of the country to shut down occasionally, as illegal aliens sometimes bring come in to the ER for things like an ear infection because they cannot be denied treatment, and without any sort of paper trail they also cannot be billed.
Just watch star trek... its easy to imagine a world without capitalism if you are an example.
IMO, that was one of Roddenberry's ideas for the way ST was done... that perhaps that was what society could be if we all just gave up on competing with each other on meta levels.
Because, literally, we can perform those rights simply by being an average person. The very act of living is various combinations of those rights... without the right/ability to think, humanity, and its social structures, would be impossible.
What the idea the right wing has corrupted suggests is that rights, such as freedom from persecution for a choice which has no real effect on the natural rights of others, should be understood to be utterly inalienable. As in, those who alienate the natural rights of others no longer are considered people.
It's a tad extreme, but the logic is fairly sound.
As far as smoking goes, I agree to a surprising degree with the South Park episode "Butt Out". The medical problems associated with smoking are real, but that tells us nothing about the relative cost-benefit of an action, or about the effort spent by society to propagate the idea.
No, I think what he was saying is that by a very real property of genetics your point of view on offspring cannot be a prevailing opinion for long. At most, until a single generation dies off, or a specific social culture dies off, but either way such an opinion cannot continue to thrive indefinitely because the genes for it (if any exist) will not be passed down, and the particular world experiences that structured that kind of mind cannot be taught in the absence of children.
How arrogant is it of a person secure in their subsistence to say "No, we could save you from starvation with this plant, but I don't believe in this plant, so fuck you."
Couldn't you still appeal this decision based on the concept of RICO and Sherman Anti-Trust Laws? There are no alternatives because they all adopt the same terms at the same time.
You cannot store electricity at 100% efficiency... you can certainly store it, whether that's chemically or not. Hydrogen electrolosized out of water is an adequate form of long-ish term electricity storage, and decent medium term storage can be achieved using flywheels weighing several dozen tons.
The fact that these systems are not in place does not mean they don't exist or can't be implemented.
Another favorite of anime is death of personality, or death of perception. For instance, in Lain, the character does not die, at least not from her point of view, she simply rewrites herself out of everyone else's existence.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't notice at first, but you and me had a conversation over a similarly charged topic yesterday. I just wanted to say, in regard to that, that while I think you were too absolutist, you made several good points, and I hope you don't simply respond with anger to this particular comment.
As much as I think it should be, it is by no means obvious that knowledge of a particular person's current or past locations constitutes a "search or seizure".
Sure it's easier with a database, but police don't need a warrant to go to the coffee shop and as "has Joe Blow been here recently?" nor should they. I think this is a much more genuine debate than most people see it as, although I don't think having complete information of past locations is the same, and thus should be subject to a warrant and judicial oversight. I'm simply pointing out that it's not crazy to consider this merely and extension of what has been happening with location and the police for over 100 years.
Do *you* really think that anyone should be above not just the law, but reality?
The whole concept of how we use banks now is terrible, because it assumes that the net production of energy in the world, and tradeable goods made from it, will increase every single year at a rate faster than interest and most certainly faster than inflation.
This hasn't been the case for at least 40 years.
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7651.pdf
As I noted several times, I never said they were the sole reason, but one of the factors. And I also never said that denying them care was the right reaction. The contrary I diagnosed the issue as being their lack of access to other forms of health care.
Why are you working so hard to paint me as a bigot while I try to have rational conversation? I will look for proof and get it notarized if possible. But again, this discussion has little to do with the point that was being made.
As a side note, your hatred for people who aren't like-minded caused you to entirely dismiss relevant and accurate description of an issue and position that actually agrees with yours, (that illegals should not be treated as inhuman). I would carefully consider why that is if I were you, because that is how I have always improved myself as a person, and I feel that others can also accomplish that by doing the same thing.
I didn't mean to imply that it was common place but it has happened. I also did not mean to imply that illegals are solely responsible, it was an example of how the current system is flawed and works against itself.
http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/no/open/list/
This is a list of hospitals that have closed ERs because of costs. Again, I am not suggesting illegals are the cause of the problem. I'm suggesting that they represent one of the many factors, primarily because all other avenues of health care access are denied to them.
Next time do some simple Google searching before you simply say someone is wrong.
The point I was making was in reference to the idea that suicide laws would allow some of the currently available "no deny" conditions to be denied based on the premise that the person would no longer be of worth to society, such as someone who is completely paralyzed. (Not that I think that makes someone worthless but rather that a government entity could argue the utility of that person.)
All of that was in reference to the OP in this thread. Taken as a whole, we surely kill people now based on their ability to pay, but that represents a core truth: we do not have the technology and/or resources to treat everyone who contracts certain conditions, and we must find some way to either improve our ability to treat these things (which we do now with medical research) or to intelligently decide where to allocate those resources.
Insurance/money is a poor way of doing that, but within our society makes some sense. Using $2 million worth of human effort and resources to extend someone's life by six months may not be in the best interests of the rest of society, as dystopian as that seems.
Incorrect. Or at least missing the point.
For all of its failings, in the United States a hospital is required to do anything within their power short of "experimental procedures" to stabilize a person, regardless of their ability to pay, legal status, race, gender, or status as a wanted criminal. This doesn't help with things like cancer or such, as treatments for the cause are all experimental, and the treatments for the symptoms are superficial.
But if you are say, in a car crash and suffer nerve damage, the ER will attempt to save your nerves before they check your insurance. Basically, in the United States, you cannot be denied treatment for conditions for which we understand the root cause because of your ability to pay. And this fact has actually caused ERs in some parts of the country to shut down occasionally, as illegal aliens sometimes bring come in to the ER for things like an ear infection because they cannot be denied treatment, and without any sort of paper trail they also cannot be billed.
Just watch star trek... its easy to imagine a world without capitalism if you are an example.
IMO, that was one of Roddenberry's ideas for the way ST was done... that perhaps that was what society could be if we all just gave up on competing with each other on meta levels.
Because, literally, we can perform those rights simply by being an average person. The very act of living is various combinations of those rights... without the right/ability to think, humanity, and its social structures, would be impossible.
What the idea the right wing has corrupted suggests is that rights, such as freedom from persecution for a choice which has no real effect on the natural rights of others, should be understood to be utterly inalienable. As in, those who alienate the natural rights of others no longer are considered people.
It's a tad extreme, but the logic is fairly sound.
Are you really expressing honest disappointment in an individual that you have never met or seen before?
MySQL is not uniquely prone to injection attacks. All that requires is unescaped user input.
As far as smoking goes, I agree to a surprising degree with the South Park episode "Butt Out". The medical problems associated with smoking are real, but that tells us nothing about the relative cost-benefit of an action, or about the effort spent by society to propagate the idea.
Todays XKCD is strikingly relevant.
Regardless, after a single generation, either the species dies or the people who believe otherwise control the earth.
No, I think what he was saying is that by a very real property of genetics your point of view on offspring cannot be a prevailing opinion for long. At most, until a single generation dies off, or a specific social culture dies off, but either way such an opinion cannot continue to thrive indefinitely because the genes for it (if any exist) will not be passed down, and the particular world experiences that structured that kind of mind cannot be taught in the absence of children.
How arrogant is it of a person secure in their subsistence to say "No, we could save you from starvation with this plant, but I don't believe in this plant, so fuck you."
This does not explain the > 500ms delay when trying to use the guide.
Couldn't you still appeal this decision based on the concept of RICO and Sherman Anti-Trust Laws? There are no alternatives because they all adopt the same terms at the same time.
Just fine thank you? The US has been reducing nuclear capacity for 30 years...
You cannot store electricity at 100% efficiency... you can certainly store it, whether that's chemically or not. Hydrogen electrolosized out of water is an adequate form of long-ish term electricity storage, and decent medium term storage can be achieved using flywheels weighing several dozen tons.
The fact that these systems are not in place does not mean they don't exist or can't be implemented.
Another favorite of anime is death of personality, or death of perception. For instance, in Lain, the character does not die, at least not from her point of view, she simply rewrites herself out of everyone else's existence.
Fine. Provide me an example of how what you claim is true, because I need one to disprove that ACTUAL CODING that I've done that says otherwise.