Remember when someone "hacked" CBS's website and learned that Gervase was the winner? The next 2 weeks were boring, as we all knew the rest of the game was a foregone conclusion - until Gervase got voted off, and we all realized we'd been had.
Ken's winning streak has been fantastic for Jeopardy's ratings (up 35% from the same time last season, last I heard). This could be just another ploy to try and drive the ratings up even further.
Come on, guys. We're notorious skeptics here on Slashdot. Don't believe everything you read.
This is another area where the Internet has had a clear impact on a topic. Whereas it used to be like pulling teeth to get kids to write and submit essays, now you can't turn a corner on the web without running into one blog or another, loaded with essays on a wide range of controversial topics. While the Internet has had a clearly detrimental effect on our spelling abilities, I think it has had a correspondingly positive impact on our willingness and enthusiasm to express opinions of all kinds. Even sites like Slashdot are loaded with rants on all sorts of topics. Heck, I have a positive-karma modifier on trolls and flamebait posts, just because those threads are often the ones with the most spirited, passionate discussions.:)
I've said this before, so I'll make my point quickly: I think it is a very bad idea to blindly encourage people to vote. PSA's that preach, "I don't care how you vote, just so long as you do" are dangerous. The truth is, not everybody is equipped to vote. The majority of people don't vote, because the majority of poeple don't have a clue what the candidates platforms are. People don't take the time to get informed. They hear a little newsbyte here, or some rumour in the coffee room there, then go and pick the guy who looks nicer.
My point is, when you encourage ignorant, apathetic people to vote, you're canceling out the votes of those who actually bothered to research the issues and make an informed decision. Voting is far too important to be left to the ignorant, apathetic, sub-100-IQ TV-addicted beer-chuggers.
It would be like meeting a person on a chat service and getting into internet-sex with this person. But then you find out that this person is 16 and in the US (illegal in the US).
If you joined a chat group that was hosted in the US, then yes, you'd have to abide by US speech laws, because your speech is traveling to the US and is being diseminated to a US audience. If you were engaging in internet sex with a minor knowingly, then yes, you'd be brought to justice in the US, and rightly so.
In your example, however, you said you were having internet sex with a person and then found out they were a minor. If you stopped as soon as you found this out, and the person had deliberately mispresented their age, and you weren't hanging out in a chatroom like "#underagesex" or something, then no reasonable system would lay charges against you, and even if they did, you'd be acquitted.
Its like the example of the guy who was arrested for dropping off a roll of film at the local photoshop, and the staff discovered that the photos were of his naked son in his bathtub. Yes, he was arrested ("Ridiculous abuse of justice!"), but in the end, they dropped the charges (cooler heads prevailed, the system worked).
Or saying "I think that the communist party is a bit bonkers, really" on a Chinese forum.
If you joined an obviously chinese forum on an obviously chinese server (irc.chatnet.china, channel #chinesechat, for example), and began espousing anti-communistic ideals, and inciting people to resist their government, then yes, of course you'd be arrested, extradited, and charged! You can't do that. That'd be like a terrorist coming on "Meet the Press" via a closed-circuit video link, and calling for all American Muslims to rise up and give their lives for the anti-American Jihad. Do you really think they wouldn't go after him for that? Do you really think such speech should be exempt from the anti-hate laws, even though it was obviously and knowingly broadcast in the country in question?
Yes, how dare a foreign citizen break U.S. law while never stepping foot inside the U.S. What was he thinking? After this precedent has been set, I hope you don't violate another country's laws on the internet, because it means you could be extradited.
The things he did were illegal in Australia, too. Much as you may wish it were so, this is not a case of him doing something that is perfectly legal in his country, but illegal in the country attempting to extradite him.
So no, this isn't like Sudan coming after my wife (a Canadian-born, Christian caucasian) for having the audacity to walk around Canada without a head scarf (an act which is illegal in Sudan). Rather, this is like Russia coming after me for hacking (sorry, "cracking") into a Russian mainframe and stealing a bunch of government credit cards.
they were unable to take any action as the footage from the CCTV wasn't clear enough
I'll bet we'll see this changing in the very near future. In the past 20 years or so, the cameras we've been using have all been recording to tape. Since your average VHS tape only holds maybe 4 hours of traditional low-quality video, these cameras actually record extra-low-quality video, producing a grainy feed that, as you noted is usually useless.
I hope that the trend going forward, given the widespread dissemination of digital imaging instead of analog, we'll see much higher-quality video feeds, being saved to high-capacity, compressed digital archives, rather than the conventional analog media. Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised to see manufacturers offering cameras that, instead of taking a continous feed of low-quality images, snaps a high-quality image every 0.5 seconds, thus providing better-quality shots of suspects.
I expect to see these trends manifesting within 2 years. If not, well, maybe there's a business opportunity there.;)
I slam on my brakes and get rear-ended. Just as in the current system, my rates will go up
Huh? I don't understand... your system must be very different from mine. I'm in Ontario, Canada. My wife has been rear-ended twice. In one case, the car was totaled, and in that crash, she was hit so hard that she actually got shoved under the back of the bus in front of her. Neither accidents were her fault (although I was afraid they might consider her liable for the damage to front of the car, since technically, she rear-ended the school bus, even though the were all at a complete stop, and the bus's lights were flashing).
Anyway, the point of my story is that in neither accident did or rates go up. Our insurance company paid out the total value of the written-off car, we bought a new car of identical value, and our rates stayed the same. Isn't that how it should be?
Also, if there was a microchip in my tongue that raised our medical insurance rates when ate a burrito, we'd also be healthier.
Actually, there have been rumblings in our government about instituting some kind of health tax credit for people who consistently partake in a healthy lifestyle (eg., tax deductible health-food-store receipts, tax-deductible health club memberships, that sort of thing). Personally, I think that's an excellent idea, and I wouldn't even really be that averse to going in the other direction, too, and bringing in a "junk-food-tax" on unhealthy items.
Where is this mythical place where people only pass on the left? I wish that were true here on the West Coast.
What's wrong with passing on the right? Here in Ontario, passing on the right is explicitly legal, as it should be. What's the big deal? If the lane's there, and it's empty, and you're going faster than the person in the left lane, pull into the right lane and go on by. How is that dangerous?
A very good point. The blackbox assumes bad behavior from the very start.
Really? Is that why all commercial airlines have them? Because without them, the pilots would be joyriding and tearing up the skies, instead of calmly conveying the passengers to their destination?
The most likely outcome is that the rates will stay the same and the payouts will be reduced as they find you don't "deserve" a payout becuase when you were hit by a drunk driver you were going two miles over the speed limit.
Really? You don't think that the first time such a case were to make it to court, that the public backlash wouldn't be so severe as to force the government to regulate the kinds of things the insurance companies are allowed to deny claims for?
You really think that such conditions would manifest, and be permitted to persist? You don't think that people would complain so loudly that the government's hand would be forced to do something? You really think that such travesties of justice would just become the norm?
Methinks your brain's been getting a little too close to the tinfoil. I suggest taking the hat off for a while, go get some sun. Maybe socialize a little.
Privacy is a form of freedom, and freedom is beyond ANY monetary value.
So then, do you object to the current line of questioning that insurance companies put you through? If not, then are you admitting that you don't mind that, because you deliberately lie to them?
You: Hi, I'd like to apply for car insurance.
Agent: OK, I just have a few questions. How old are you?
You: None of your business.
Agent: What kind of car do you drive?
You: None of your business.
Agent: OK, I've run your information through our system, and we can offer you a very competitive rate of $1350/year. Can I fax you the approval form for your signature?
My friend had done nothing wrong, except his drivers license had expired the day before. He spent a weekend in jail, as it was now 'his fault,' because he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. (he had just moved and the DMV notifications hadn't caught up with him -- he knew nothing about it until this happened)
Uhm, perhaps they're different where you are, but looking at my drivers license (Ontario, Canada), there's a very clearly printed "Expiration Date" on it.
Why didn't he see this, and just call the DMV before it expired? Why didn't he know when his own license expired, and either have it taken care of, or at least, not driven until he'd taken care of it?
Yeah, sure, it sounds so unreasonable to not notice your drivers license expiring - "who the heck keeps track of that stuff?"
Well, sorry, but that's what it means to be a grown-up. If you "forget" to pay your taxes, or "didn't notice" your license plates expiring, or renewing your insurance "slipped your mind," they don't cut you a break. And in most cases, sure, they'll notify you, but if they don't, the responsibility still falls back on you to keep track of your own business.
I'm in Alberta, I payed $3200 a year. He's in Sask, he payed $800 or so.
The simple explanation here is that the Saskatchewan taxpayers are picking up the difference. Sheeple are actually pretty dumb. Ontario has been grappling with this issue for a little over a year. We've got drivers crying for lower rates, and pointing to New Brunswick and Saskatchewan as examples. However, they ignore the benefit caps that have been instituted in those provinces. If you have a car accident that paralyzes you for life, the insurance providers in those provinces only have to pay out a certain, capped amount. The government can't require them to lower rates while keeping the same high payouts. However, in Ontario, if you were to require such a catastrophic claim, the payout would be much higher.
But people don't see that. They only see the short-term benefits. "Yes, your rates would drop $800/year, but if you were to be seriously injured, the insurance company would only have to pay for the first $100,000 of health care. After that, you'd be on your own." Most people tune out after, "drop $800/year."
Since then though, my insurance has gone as high as $4200, and is just now (that i'm 21!) dropping back down to around $2800,
Didn't it occur to you to perhaps consider trading in your pocket rocket for a less conspicuous, more practical car?
Presently, insurance is gambling. It's as simple as that. They run some numbers, some statistics, some risk factors, crank them through a magic formula, and guess at how likely you are to have an accident. This program would take the guessing out of it.
Look at it this way: Right now, if you're a good driver, you're paying for all the bad drivers out there. The bad drivers are able to get away with it, because the insurance companies have no way of actually knowing who's a good driver and who's a bad one, other than a few very generic indicators (age, sex, type of car you drive). What we have now amounts to little more than discrimination.
A program like this would force those who are actually causing the accidents to be the ones to pick up the tab for them, instead of spreading the cost out over all us good drivers.
A similar situation exists with health insurance. If my family has a history of prostate cancer and yours doesn't, why should we pay the same rate? I'm likely going to cost them more, so shouldn't I pay more? Shouldn't our insurance companies be privy to our genetic profiles, so you can get the discount you deserve?
OK, the health insurance is a bad example, even I'll admit it, because you can't control your genes. However, you can control your driving, and thus, those who drive dangerously should be made to pay more, because they're a higher risk. Those who drive sensibly should get the discounts they deserve, and shouldn't have to pay for all the reckless, "invincibility-complex" teenagers out there.
Seems to have changed eir tune since the 1982 Betamax testimony:
That hypocritical, inconsistent, flip-flopping bastard!
He's clearly a two-faced, opportunistic cretin. Ethical and honest people never change their opinions, and believe the same things for their whole lives. They never grow and learn and evolve their beliefs. Certainly not over such a short period as... (1982, carry the one...) 22 years! I mean, come on, just 22 years ago, he didn't like VCRs, now he does??? FLIP-FLOPPER!
I don't know about the US, but they teached us in school what credit cards are and how they work.
While I'm glad to see your school included such valuable, practical, real-world topics in their curriculum, couldn't they have found something else to cancel, rather than "Grammar" class? Would anyone have missed, for example, "Geography?"
The National Debt is up to what, about $6 trillion? Which segment of the taxpaying public is carrying the greatest burden of that as a percentage of their annual income? Minimum wage hasn't gone up in how many years?
If you're trying to imply that the lower income demographic (those who are the ones who get in trouble with creditors, i.e., the ones we're talking about in this thread) are the ones feeling the biggest pinch on carrying their share of the national debt tax burden, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to try harder. You've overlooked one simple fact:
The poor don't pay taxes.
I don't have the numbers for the US, but in Canada, if your gross annual income is around $10,000 (i.e., the part-time minimum-wager you're talking about), then they wouldn't pay any income tax at all. The first $8,000 is completely tax-free for everybody. And there are lots of credits for housing, health, and other taxes that you're eligible for if your income is below various thresholds (which my hypothetical $10,000 income is below, in every case). Heck, they'd even get their Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums rebated to them.
The truly poor, the ones in trouble with creditors, they don't pay any tax at all.
do you call up and bitch at the power companies and demand free electricity when a storm nocks down powerlines and plunges you into darkness for a few minutes to a few hours?
No, of course not, because power is a metered service. We only pay for what we use.
Internet, on the other hand, is an "always-on" service. We pay $35 for a month of service. If we only get 29 days of service, then our monthly fee for that month should be reduced by an amount to reflect the day the service was unavailable. Why should we pay for service we didn't receive?
Internet, cable, and telephone are services for which we pay a flat fee, per month. So when the service is reduced for some reason, then the fee should be reduced correspondingly.
Electricity, natural gas, and the water bill are all "metered" services, where we only pay for what we use. If the service happens to be out for a day, our bill will be smaller, because we weren't using that service at all that day. Of course, it wasn't by choice, but the fact remains that we are not being asked to pay for service we didn't receive, as is the case with the DSL that was knocked out by a storm.
He is probably not entitled to a free month, but he should certainly be credited for the days he was paying for service that was not available.
Note that Parliament will be stengthening Canada's copyright laws as soon as the MP's return from summer break. So enjoy it while you can, because it will be made explicitly illegal in Canada shortly.
BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law).;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.
Except for the annoying, inane chatter of the DJ at the beginning of the song, and breaking back in at the end, as the song is trailing off. "That was 50 Cent's latest, 'Kill all the white ho's and sell drugs to kids,' off his latest album, 'It's fun to pretend you're a pimp.'"
Why do they do that, anyway? On the radio stations around here, the DJ will be introducing a song, talking about whatever, and the song will start while they're still talking. Just the instrumental part though. The DJ always finishes whatever he's saying just before the lyrics of the song actually start (I'm convinced they have some kind of countdown display that tells them exactly how many seconds are left before the lyrics of the song start). Are they just trying to be smooth, or do you think their license agreements for the songs actually requires them to talk over some portion of the song, to try and discourage exactly the kind of activity you described (i.e., taping the songs off the radio)?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember when someone "hacked" CBS's website and learned that Gervase was the winner? The next 2 weeks were boring, as we all knew the rest of the game was a foregone conclusion - until Gervase got voted off, and we all realized we'd been had.
Ken's winning streak has been fantastic for Jeopardy's ratings (up 35% from the same time last season, last I heard). This could be just another ploy to try and drive the ratings up even further.
Come on, guys. We're notorious skeptics here on Slashdot. Don't believe everything you read.
This is another area where the Internet has had a clear impact on a topic. Whereas it used to be like pulling teeth to get kids to write and submit essays, now you can't turn a corner on the web without running into one blog or another, loaded with essays on a wide range of controversial topics. While the Internet has had a clearly detrimental effect on our spelling abilities, I think it has had a correspondingly positive impact on our willingness and enthusiasm to express opinions of all kinds. Even sites like Slashdot are loaded with rants on all sorts of topics. Heck, I have a positive-karma modifier on trolls and flamebait posts, just because those threads are often the ones with the most spirited, passionate discussions. :)
I've said this before, so I'll make my point quickly: I think it is a very bad idea to blindly encourage people to vote. PSA's that preach, "I don't care how you vote, just so long as you do" are dangerous. The truth is, not everybody is equipped to vote. The majority of people don't vote, because the majority of poeple don't have a clue what the candidates platforms are. People don't take the time to get informed. They hear a little newsbyte here, or some rumour in the coffee room there, then go and pick the guy who looks nicer.
My point is, when you encourage ignorant, apathetic people to vote, you're canceling out the votes of those who actually bothered to research the issues and make an informed decision. Voting is far too important to be left to the ignorant, apathetic, sub-100-IQ TV-addicted beer-chuggers.
Just my opinion.
It would be like meeting a person on a chat service and getting into internet-sex with this person. But then you find out that this person is 16 and in the US (illegal in the US).
If you joined a chat group that was hosted in the US, then yes, you'd have to abide by US speech laws, because your speech is traveling to the US and is being diseminated to a US audience. If you were engaging in internet sex with a minor knowingly, then yes, you'd be brought to justice in the US, and rightly so.
In your example, however, you said you were having internet sex with a person and then found out they were a minor. If you stopped as soon as you found this out, and the person had deliberately mispresented their age, and you weren't hanging out in a chatroom like "#underagesex" or something, then no reasonable system would lay charges against you, and even if they did, you'd be acquitted.
Its like the example of the guy who was arrested for dropping off a roll of film at the local photoshop, and the staff discovered that the photos were of his naked son in his bathtub. Yes, he was arrested ("Ridiculous abuse of justice!"), but in the end, they dropped the charges (cooler heads prevailed, the system worked).
Or saying "I think that the communist party is a bit bonkers, really" on a Chinese forum.
If you joined an obviously chinese forum on an obviously chinese server (irc.chatnet.china, channel #chinesechat, for example), and began espousing anti-communistic ideals, and inciting people to resist their government, then yes, of course you'd be arrested, extradited, and charged! You can't do that. That'd be like a terrorist coming on "Meet the Press" via a closed-circuit video link, and calling for all American Muslims to rise up and give their lives for the anti-American Jihad. Do you really think they wouldn't go after him for that? Do you really think such speech should be exempt from the anti-hate laws, even though it was obviously and knowingly broadcast in the country in question?
Let's be reasonable here.
Yes, how dare a foreign citizen break U.S. law while never stepping foot inside the U.S. What was he thinking? After this precedent has been set, I hope you don't violate another country's laws on the internet, because it means you could be extradited.
The things he did were illegal in Australia, too. Much as you may wish it were so, this is not a case of him doing something that is perfectly legal in his country, but illegal in the country attempting to extradite him.
So no, this isn't like Sudan coming after my wife (a Canadian-born, Christian caucasian) for having the audacity to walk around Canada without a head scarf (an act which is illegal in Sudan). Rather, this is like Russia coming after me for hacking (sorry, "cracking") into a Russian mainframe and stealing a bunch of government credit cards.
Nice try though. Er... not really.
they were unable to take any action as the footage from the CCTV wasn't clear enough
;)
I'll bet we'll see this changing in the very near future. In the past 20 years or so, the cameras we've been using have all been recording to tape. Since your average VHS tape only holds maybe 4 hours of traditional low-quality video, these cameras actually record extra-low-quality video, producing a grainy feed that, as you noted is usually useless.
I hope that the trend going forward, given the widespread dissemination of digital imaging instead of analog, we'll see much higher-quality video feeds, being saved to high-capacity, compressed digital archives, rather than the conventional analog media. Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised to see manufacturers offering cameras that, instead of taking a continous feed of low-quality images, snaps a high-quality image every 0.5 seconds, thus providing better-quality shots of suspects.
I expect to see these trends manifesting within 2 years. If not, well, maybe there's a business opportunity there.
I slam on my brakes and get rear-ended. Just as in the current system, my rates will go up
Huh? I don't understand... your system must be very different from mine. I'm in Ontario, Canada. My wife has been rear-ended twice. In one case, the car was totaled, and in that crash, she was hit so hard that she actually got shoved under the back of the bus in front of her. Neither accidents were her fault (although I was afraid they might consider her liable for the damage to front of the car, since technically, she rear-ended the school bus, even though the were all at a complete stop, and the bus's lights were flashing).
Anyway, the point of my story is that in neither accident did or rates go up. Our insurance company paid out the total value of the written-off car, we bought a new car of identical value, and our rates stayed the same. Isn't that how it should be?
Also, if there was a microchip in my tongue that raised our medical insurance rates when ate a burrito, we'd also be healthier.
Actually, there have been rumblings in our government about instituting some kind of health tax credit for people who consistently partake in a healthy lifestyle (eg., tax deductible health-food-store receipts, tax-deductible health club memberships, that sort of thing). Personally, I think that's an excellent idea, and I wouldn't even really be that averse to going in the other direction, too, and bringing in a "junk-food-tax" on unhealthy items.
Okay, lets install cameras in your house just to make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal in there.
Bzzzt! Strawman. Privacy in the home is a right. Driving is a privelege.
Play Again? Y/N
Where is this mythical place where people only pass on the left? I wish that were true here on the West Coast.
What's wrong with passing on the right? Here in Ontario, passing on the right is explicitly legal, as it should be. What's the big deal? If the lane's there, and it's empty, and you're going faster than the person in the left lane, pull into the right lane and go on by. How is that dangerous?
A very good point. The blackbox assumes bad behavior from the very start.
Really? Is that why all commercial airlines have them? Because without them, the pilots would be joyriding and tearing up the skies, instead of calmly conveying the passengers to their destination?
The most likely outcome is that the rates will stay the same and the payouts will be reduced as they find you don't "deserve" a payout becuase when you were hit by a drunk driver you were going two miles over the speed limit.
Really? You don't think that the first time such a case were to make it to court, that the public backlash wouldn't be so severe as to force the government to regulate the kinds of things the insurance companies are allowed to deny claims for?
You really think that such conditions would manifest, and be permitted to persist? You don't think that people would complain so loudly that the government's hand would be forced to do something? You really think that such travesties of justice would just become the norm?
Methinks your brain's been getting a little too close to the tinfoil. I suggest taking the hat off for a while, go get some sun. Maybe socialize a little.
After all, if you want a low rate, why not prove it?
Because having to "prove it" isn't a free market.
You might have had a point, if low rates were actually a "right."
Privacy is a form of freedom, and freedom is beyond ANY monetary value.
So then, do you object to the current line of questioning that insurance companies put you through? If not, then are you admitting that you don't mind that, because you deliberately lie to them?
You: Hi, I'd like to apply for car insurance.
Agent: OK, I just have a few questions. How old are you?
You: None of your business.
Agent: What kind of car do you drive?
You: None of your business.
Agent: OK, I've run your information through our system, and we can offer you a very competitive rate of $1350/year. Can I fax you the approval form for your signature?
You: Sure thing, thanks very much.
Agent: No problem. What's your fax number?
You: None of your business.
My friend had done nothing wrong, except his drivers license had expired the day before. He spent a weekend in jail, as it was now 'his fault,' because he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. (he had just moved and the DMV notifications hadn't caught up with him -- he knew nothing about it until this happened)
Uhm, perhaps they're different where you are, but looking at my drivers license (Ontario, Canada), there's a very clearly printed "Expiration Date" on it.
Why didn't he see this, and just call the DMV before it expired? Why didn't he know when his own license expired, and either have it taken care of, or at least, not driven until he'd taken care of it?
Yeah, sure, it sounds so unreasonable to not notice your drivers license expiring - "who the heck keeps track of that stuff?"
Well, sorry, but that's what it means to be a grown-up. If you "forget" to pay your taxes, or "didn't notice" your license plates expiring, or renewing your insurance "slipped your mind," they don't cut you a break. And in most cases, sure, they'll notify you, but if they don't, the responsibility still falls back on you to keep track of your own business.
I'm in Alberta, I payed $3200 a year. He's in Sask, he payed $800 or so.
The simple explanation here is that the Saskatchewan taxpayers are picking up the difference. Sheeple are actually pretty dumb. Ontario has been grappling with this issue for a little over a year. We've got drivers crying for lower rates, and pointing to New Brunswick and Saskatchewan as examples. However, they ignore the benefit caps that have been instituted in those provinces. If you have a car accident that paralyzes you for life, the insurance providers in those provinces only have to pay out a certain, capped amount. The government can't require them to lower rates while keeping the same high payouts. However, in Ontario, if you were to require such a catastrophic claim, the payout would be much higher.
But people don't see that. They only see the short-term benefits. "Yes, your rates would drop $800/year, but if you were to be seriously injured, the insurance company would only have to pay for the first $100,000 of health care. After that, you'd be on your own." Most people tune out after, "drop $800/year."
Since then though, my insurance has gone as high as $4200, and is just now (that i'm 21!) dropping back down to around $2800,
Didn't it occur to you to perhaps consider trading in your pocket rocket for a less conspicuous, more practical car?
Presently, insurance is gambling. It's as simple as that. They run some numbers, some statistics, some risk factors, crank them through a magic formula, and guess at how likely you are to have an accident. This program would take the guessing out of it.
Look at it this way: Right now, if you're a good driver, you're paying for all the bad drivers out there. The bad drivers are able to get away with it, because the insurance companies have no way of actually knowing who's a good driver and who's a bad one, other than a few very generic indicators (age, sex, type of car you drive). What we have now amounts to little more than discrimination.
A program like this would force those who are actually causing the accidents to be the ones to pick up the tab for them, instead of spreading the cost out over all us good drivers.
A similar situation exists with health insurance. If my family has a history of prostate cancer and yours doesn't, why should we pay the same rate? I'm likely going to cost them more, so shouldn't I pay more? Shouldn't our insurance companies be privy to our genetic profiles, so you can get the discount you deserve?
OK, the health insurance is a bad example, even I'll admit it, because you can't control your genes. However, you can control your driving, and thus, those who drive dangerously should be made to pay more, because they're a higher risk. Those who drive sensibly should get the discounts they deserve, and shouldn't have to pay for all the reckless, "invincibility-complex" teenagers out there.
Relax, guy, I was just trying to be funny. :)
native speakers don't know the difference between "its", "it's" and "ITs".
Touche, my friend. Also, "lose/loose," "your/you're", and the ever-popular "there/they're/their".
From the interview:
... (1982, carry the one ...) 22 years! I mean, come on, just 22 years ago, he didn't like VCRs, now he does??? FLIP-FLOPPER!
I have a TiVo set. I truly enjoy it.
Seems to have changed eir tune since the 1982 Betamax testimony:
That hypocritical, inconsistent, flip-flopping bastard!
He's clearly a two-faced, opportunistic cretin. Ethical and honest people never change their opinions, and believe the same things for their whole lives. They never grow and learn and evolve their beliefs. Certainly not over such a short period as
</SARCASM>
I don't know about the US, but they teached us in school what credit cards are and how they work.
While I'm glad to see your school included such valuable, practical, real-world topics in their curriculum, couldn't they have found something else to cancel, rather than "Grammar" class? Would anyone have missed, for example, "Geography?"
The National Debt is up to what, about $6 trillion? Which segment of the taxpaying public is carrying the greatest burden of that as a percentage of their annual income? Minimum wage hasn't gone up in how many years?
If you're trying to imply that the lower income demographic (those who are the ones who get in trouble with creditors, i.e., the ones we're talking about in this thread) are the ones feeling the biggest pinch on carrying their share of the national debt tax burden, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to try harder. You've overlooked one simple fact:
The poor don't pay taxes.
I don't have the numbers for the US, but in Canada, if your gross annual income is around $10,000 (i.e., the part-time minimum-wager you're talking about), then they wouldn't pay any income tax at all. The first $8,000 is completely tax-free for everybody. And there are lots of credits for housing, health, and other taxes that you're eligible for if your income is below various thresholds (which my hypothetical $10,000 income is below, in every case). Heck, they'd even get their Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums rebated to them.
The truly poor, the ones in trouble with creditors, they don't pay any tax at all.
I can finally start marketing my "Trace-Buster-BUSTER!"
("The Big Hit?" No? OK, sorry.
do you call up and bitch at the power companies and demand free electricity when a storm nocks down powerlines and plunges you into darkness for a few minutes to a few hours?
No, of course not, because power is a metered service. We only pay for what we use.
Internet, on the other hand, is an "always-on" service. We pay $35 for a month of service. If we only get 29 days of service, then our monthly fee for that month should be reduced by an amount to reflect the day the service was unavailable. Why should we pay for service we didn't receive?
Internet, cable, and telephone are services for which we pay a flat fee, per month. So when the service is reduced for some reason, then the fee should be reduced correspondingly.
Electricity, natural gas, and the water bill are all "metered" services, where we only pay for what we use. If the service happens to be out for a day, our bill will be smaller, because we weren't using that service at all that day. Of course, it wasn't by choice, but the fact remains that we are not being asked to pay for service we didn't receive, as is the case with the DSL that was knocked out by a storm.
He is probably not entitled to a free month, but he should certainly be credited for the days he was paying for service that was not available.
Note that Parliament will be stengthening Canada's copyright laws as soon as the MP's return from summer break. So enjoy it while you can, because it will be made explicitly illegal in Canada shortly.
BTW, an interesting alternative is to digitize analog from FM or digital cable, then rip to MP3. It's even legal (VCR law). ;-) You won't notice a quality difference in most situations.
Except for the annoying, inane chatter of the DJ at the beginning of the song, and breaking back in at the end, as the song is trailing off. "That was 50 Cent's latest, 'Kill all the white ho's and sell drugs to kids,' off his latest album, 'It's fun to pretend you're a pimp.'"
Why do they do that, anyway? On the radio stations around here, the DJ will be introducing a song, talking about whatever, and the song will start while they're still talking. Just the instrumental part though. The DJ always finishes whatever he's saying just before the lyrics of the song actually start (I'm convinced they have some kind of countdown display that tells them exactly how many seconds are left before the lyrics of the song start). Are they just trying to be smooth, or do you think their license agreements for the songs actually requires them to talk over some portion of the song, to try and discourage exactly the kind of activity you described (i.e., taping the songs off the radio)?