Nice apples to apples comparison. There are a number of state schools that are in the same range as your $3800 per year. State funded universities range from $700-$2000 per semester.
I'm not talking about a state/provincial school. I'm talking about a private institution. And not just any private institution - the most expensive one anywhere in Canada. At the time, Acadia's tuition was the highest anywhere in Canada, of ANY undergraduate university, public or private. I'm saying that it was impossible to find a school in Canada where it was more expensive to get an undergrad degree than Acadia. And it cost $3800 per year.
I'm comparing Canada's most expensive private institution with the USA's average tuition for private institutions. And Canada is obviously far, far more accessible.
I seem to remember paying about $250 per month for Alberta Health to cover my family.
Are you a Canadian citizen? Were you perhaps working here on a work visa? Obviously, immigrants don't get automatic and complete access to our health care system, but taxpaying Canadian citizens don't have to pay anything for health care. Dental and vision is a different story - yes, you have to pay for that. This is, however, usually covered by your employer, if you have one. Otherwise, sure, it's a few bucks a month, but nowhere near the $250 you cited.
You're incredibly wrong on just about all points. I have mod points right now and couldn't decide whether to mod you down, or reply. Since by the time I decided, you'd already been modded into oblivion, I guess I'll just add insult to injury and reply to your wildly inaccurate and ignorant ramblings.
Re: Health Care
Canada does have a problem with its health-care: the wait times. I'll grant you that in Canada, it generally takes longer to get non-life-threatening operations than it does in the US. But with a catch: in order to get this "expidited" service in the US, you have to be able to afford it. And not everyone can. So in the US, you have nice, fast service for the rich, and no service at all for everyone else. In Canada, EVERYONE gets the health care they need.
An interesting phenomena in Canada is that rich Canadians will come to the US for treatment, because even though they have to pay full price, they get it much more expidently, and higher quality.
The assumption that US healthcare is of higher quality is actually a myth. While it does cost more, and you can get it faster, it is not necessarily better. Canada has all the same drugs, treatments, and state-of-the-art equipment that the US does, with a few notable, exotic exceptions.
Secondary education also seems to be the same.
Oh no, it's definitely not. Canada's government directs much, much more funding (proportionally) towards post-secondary education than the US. The most expensive undergraduate university in Canada is still far, far cheaper than even the average tuition at private institutions in the US. When I graduated 5 years ago, my tuition was $3800 CDN/year, and that was the most expensive anywhere in the country (Acadia University). At the time, Harvard tuition was around $23,000 USD, IIRC.
In addition, the student loan system is more accessible in Canada.
I've spent time in the US, and strongly prefer Canada. While I concede that the US is very large, and attitudes obviously vary by region (just as they do in Canada), my experience with USAmericans was that they are very confrontational, conservative, closed-minded, and traditional about certain issues (gun control, gay marriage, war), and apathetic about other important issues (intellectual property laws, corporate lobbying of government to "buy" laws, DMCA, privacy issues in general).
Canada is far more progressive, socially. Our drinking age is lower (19 versus the US's 21), gay rights are far more advanced in Canada than in the US. Marijuana is de facto legal here (posession, at least - not trafficking or growing [yet]). Publication and media laws are more lax and liberal. Our freedoms and privacy have not been "bought" by powerful corporations nearly to the degree that they have in the US, although that's probably because we simply have far fewer corporations large enough to exert such pressure, by virtue of our smaller population.
Pollution is less in Canada. The violent crime rate is an order of magnitude lower, even when you consider the population difference. Our taxation rate is actually comparable to the US's, when you factor in things like health insurance, which you might not see come off your income tax bill, but you're paying anyway, giving you the illusion that you actually get to "take home" more of your salary than a Canadian. Sure, we may pay an extra $3000 more in income tax than a USAmerican making the same salary, but we're not paying $350/month for health insurance, either. Yes, I know the numbers don't add up. You're actually paying more for your health care than we are, because your government has been paid off by the pharmaceudical companies, and is allowed to gouge people for expensive medication. Canada has tougher regulations to keep medicine affordable, and thus decreasing our overall cost of health care.
My acoustics book said that if you put a person with normal hearing into a sound isolated anechoic chamber, and give them awhile to adjust, they will actually hear the blood flowing in their ear.
An even cheaper demonstration is to simply plug your ears. It works better in an area that's already quiet, but if you simply plug your ears with your fingers, you'll hear the blood flowing in your veins and arteries. That's what that low, rumbling noise is that you'll hear.
I used to go to private school but now I am going to public school because there isn't enough money.
*Gasp*! Not PUBLIC SCHOOL!!!
Welcome to the real world, snooty pretentious preppy bastard. You'd be surprised how well some of us "public school" tripe can turn out, if you'd lower your nose a bit and take a peek down at us.
How timely. I recently wrote an essay (read: rant) on why E-Voting is inevitable, and why we should all just suck it up and work to make the system better, instead of fighting it and trying to preserve an antiquated and inadequate pen-and-paper system.
There should be no question in anyone's mind that electronic voting is the future. It is impossible to argue that moving to an electronic system is not inevitable, any more than it is possible to argue in favour of abandoning cell phones and reverting to tin cans and string, or abandoning email in favour of carrier pigeons.
The benefits of electronic voting are obvious and numerous: real-time tallying, greater security (a staffer couriering a box of ballots could theoretically manipulate them, but a staffer transmitting an encrypted database is powerless to alter it), elimination of ambiguous selections (eg., "Hanging/Pregnant Chads"), less time required per voter, fewer staff required to manage an election, and less paper waste.
No system is without its drawbacks, however, and e-voting's drawbacks are subtle and insidious. The most obvious weakness of an e-voting system regards securing the system against manipulation. Elections hold an enormous amount at stake - indeed, entire political careers - and thus the temptation for covert meddling is inevitable. The people designing and implementing the system could be bribed into embedding backdoors into the software.
A less obvious drawback of e-voting is that it puts at risk one of the fundamental pillars of a democracy - anonymous voting. In order to prevent ineligible people from voting, or eligible people from voting multiple times, their identity would have to be verified prior to voting. However, in order to support re-counts, the actual votes themselves would have to be somehow tied to the people that cast them (otherwise, the tally would simply be an integer that increments whenever someone votes for them). If the voters weren't completely confident that their vote was guaranteed to be kept secret, the entire democracy could be undermined. With a corrupt incumbant, people could be intimidated into voting for them, out of fear that the government might quietly (or worse - aggressively) discriminate against anyone who voted for their opponent.
These problems, and the others related to e-voting are not insurmountable. The software used to run the system should be completely public. This would prevent backdoors from being inserted into the system by allowing anyone with enough computer-savvy to personally inspect the code controlling the system. In fact, virtually all software written by the government should be made freely available anyway, since it is OUR tax dollars that funded its creation.
The voter anonymity could be guaranteed by assigning eligible voters a security public/private key pair, with the mappings held in escrow by a special elections comission. The database would only be accessible to a non-partisan staff of top-secret-cleared employees, and would be destroyed after the election results were certified.
The complete widespread adoption of electronic voting is inevitable. It is not a question of "if," but rather "when." Some jurisdictions are already experimenting with some systems, with less than encouraging results. One of their principal mistakes is that they have contracted out the software for the systems, and the source code is not being made available for public inspection. Consequently, there are pockets of the electorate who don't trust the systems, and indeed, the systems have already exhibited troubling symptoms of bugs that may have been detected and corrected if the software had been opened up prior to being deployed.
American's only vote when it matters.. like who's going to be the next American Idol.
I know you were only joking, but the funny thing is, you're actually right, and network execs have noticed. The wheels are already turning for an "American Idol"-style TV show to choose a presidential candidate. The show is called "American Candidate," and although it won't let me see the page because I'm not in the US, here's the link.
The hope is that if an election is "glammed-up" like TV shows, that voter interest will be piqued. In all seriousness, a surprising large number of people actually do vote in shows like "American Idol," and "Big Brother." If we could harness that kind of excitement and focus it on something like an election, we may just be able to restore voter interest.
If you don't look like a Native American, then you yourself are an immigrant.
Hogwash! If you were born here, then you're "native." "Immigrants," by definition, were not born here. Thus, it logically follows that to be considered an "immigrant," you must be born somewhere other than the country in question (I presume you're in the US?).
Everyone who was born here is "native." It just so happens that some people have family trees containing members that migrated here substantially earlier than other people. The fact that my great-great-great-great grandfather migrated here, whereas your great-great-great-great grandfather was born here does not make you any more special than I am.
I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon Canadian, born and raised in Nova Scotia. My parents were both born here, as were their parents. I consider myself a "native Canadian."
Note, however, the important lack of capitalization of "native." I will grant you a distinction between "native" (i.e., I was born here) and "Native" (meaning my family is Metis/Inuit/MiqMaq/etc.), which for historical reasons, are still singled out.
I think it is absolutely idiotic that some people think that just because my great-great-great-great grandfather took some land from their great-great-great-great grandfather, that that somehow entitles them to some kind of special privileges now, in the present. I'm sorry, but we were both born here on North American soil, you're no more special than I am, we should all just live together and end this practice of dividing.
If you lack the ability to monitor and care for your children in a manner that you see fit, then don't have kids.
<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK> Nonsense! This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. We have government programs, daycare, surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, gene therapy, genetic counseling, selective fetal termination,... there are no excuses to not have kids anymore. If you don't want to quit your job to care for your own offspring, then don't! We've got daycare, live-in-nannies, gangs, and community programs. Now, parents need not sacrifice their freedoms and professional lives just to get bogged down with the boring, menial task of raising one's own children. Heck, with all the video games and TV channels we have available now, kids practically raise themselves!
When I think back of how my family had to give up caviar and luxury cars and only live off one salary so my Mom could stay home and raise me, I'm filled with sadness. Think of all the fun times with shallow fellow corporate slaves that she missed out on to sit around and watch me grow up. If only we'd had MTV and Nintendo when I were young.
Parents today shouldn't have to trade in their Mercedes SUV and GSM cellphone and downsize from their 4-bedroom mansion and live off of one salary! BOTH parents can continue working as long as they want, and need only interact with their kids for a couple hours a day! I mean, after a long day at work, who has the energy to quiz a kid over the basic algebra they're studying for tomorrow's test? Can't someone else do it?
Can't someone else raise our kids? In this day and age - yes! <TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>
Or would you like to be like Mr. Gates, a "rich" man who cannot buy the things that really matter?
WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Last I checked, Bill Gates lives a safe, secure life in a dream home, is happily married with 3 kids, donates enormous amounts of cash to educational facilities (in case you were going to try and suggest that his conscience isn't clear), can afford to give everyone he cares about the life they've always dreamed of, has time to pursue anything he's interested in... Uhm... what part of this isn't a "rich, fulfilling life?"
a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air was made almost 50 years ago. Windows 98 was released in 1997- almost 7 years ago. That's a bit of a stretch, and you know it.
*Sigh* That's precisely my point, moron. Did you even read my post? I repeat: "How long should manufacturers be obliged to support their products?" So far, all you've said is that it's less than 50 but more than 7.
Why do you speak as though this "conundrum" were unique to Microsoft, or even closed-source software in general? If I buy a '57 Chevy Bel-Air convertible, and the top has a tear in it, should GM be obligated to provide me with a replacement part, if I'm willing to pay for it? Does the fact that they won't indicate that GM is a bad company for not supporting its "legacy" products?
Just how long should a company be obligated to support its older products? And why are you coming down so hard on Microsoft while ignoring the fact that this is simply standard practice, in every industry?
Lets say certain groceries can be used to make a bomb (cleaning solutions, fertilizer, lye etc.) All Ashcroft has to do is to use the Patriot act to get your grocery shopping, and sees that you've recently bought alot of these products.
Uh, buddy? They're already doing this. They've been doing it since the Oklahoma City bombing. They already monitor purchases of bomb-making materials. If you're neither a trucker nor a farmer, and you go to a farming supply store and purchase 1200 pounds of fertilizer and 400 gallons of diesel fuel, I guarantee the government will contact you. It's a simple fact of life now. They monitor those types of things.
This isn't a secret, either. It's been publicly known since shortly after McVeigh's bombing.
Where in the heck do you live where the new releases are available for rent before they're available for sale? Up here in Canada, movies show up for sale and rental simultaneously. Either you live someplace very strange, or you're just plain talking out your ass.
Wal-Mart's not going to stock an $89 DVD, but rental places will buy it at that price. Then, a few weeks later, the price plumets for everybody, and that's when retail picks it up.
You're wrong. New releases come out for sale in retail outlets at the exact same time they come available for rental at the rental stores. The difference is the license.
When you buy a movie from Walmart, take it home, and pop it into your player, you'd see an FBI warning. If you actually read it, you'd see that it says you're not allowed to charge money to exhibit or loan the movie.
The copy you rent from Blockbuster does not have that warning.
Sorry, you're way off. Instead of thinking of some imaginary bizzarro world where the correct number of pills magically jump into the right bottles without human intervention, rather think of a world where the pharmacist isn't risking mis-reading a doctor's chickenscratch on the prescription, and the correct medication is always dispensed. Think of a world where allergic reactions and dangerous drug combinations are automatically detected and alerted, rather than relying on an overworked human's powers of observation. Imagine a world where the biggest screwup that the pharmacist could make (and yes, we would still need pharmacists) is putting a couple too many or too few pills in the bottle.
Then you'd be a little closer to a more realistic and practical future for this type of tech.
Why is the cop asking for ID? He wants you to prove you are innocent.
That's the most retarted thing I've read so far this month. There's still a week to go, but I'm going to go ahead and give you the cake anyway.
Think about what you just said. It could be used to argue against ALL ARRESTS AND TRIALS. "Why should I have to go to trial and prove I'm innocent? They should hold the trial without impacting my life AT ALL, and then come get me once they've PROVEN to a judge that I'm guilty."
I for one cannot accept injustice, and stop and nothing to correct situations, even if it takes years, or a lifetime.
Spoken like someone without a wife and kids to support.
Do you think you're the only person who's ever felt this way? Do you really think that NOBODY who's ever gone up against the government has felt the way you do? Why do you think they backed down?
Cops only need one of two things to search your vehicle: probable cause, or your permission. The problem is that just about anything can be construed as "probable cause." Expired tags, misdemeanor record, or even simply being pulled over in a neighborhood known for drug deals. I've even heard that it cops have successfully argued in court that the simple fact that the driver refused permission to search constituted probable cause that he was hiding something, so the cop was justified in going ahead and searching anyway.
It's not and they don't. Police can detain a citizen only when there are specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and can make an arrest only based on probable cause. "I don't want to show you my papers, and I don't want to talk to you" is basis for neither.
Ah, the things you learn watching "COPS" and other assorted reality-TV cop shows. In the US, if you take "I don't want to talk to you" to its logical extreme of actually walking (running) away from the cop who wishes to talk to you, they can chase you and arrest you, simply for running away. It's called "Felony Evasion." Note the "Felony" part. Not even a misdemeanor. A felony. You could get a felony record, just for running away from a cop. Even if you've done nothing else wrong, and they don't charge you with anything else, just simply running away is in itself a crime.
You want to fight something? How about stopping face-recognition software being used in public places to run a "ID check" on everyone without even their knowledge.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but what's wrong with that? Background checks simply pull up a list of someone's prior police record, it doesn't get into any personal, irrelevant details like shopping habits, dirty magazine subscriptions or what have you. It simply says "The person in the photo has been identified as John Doe. He was convicted of misdemeanor posession of a controlled substance in 1992." Or maybe, "Mike Smith is currently wanted on an arrest warrant for murdering his daughter."
What's wrong with that? Why wouldn't you want cops to be better able to find people with warrants out for their arrests?
I realize these are fictitious numbers, and I'm in no way condoning such a hideously low pay-rate, but since this is a tax discussion, I feel compelled to point out that if your roommate made the upper limit of what you said ($200/week) and never took any vacation, they'd still only be making $10,400 per year.
I don't know what the tax laws are like where you are, but up here in Canada, if your total annual income was $10,400, you wouldn't owe any tax at all. There could be no "tax cheating" going on, because he wouldn't owe anything in the first place. People who make such small amounts of money in Canada pay no income tax.
In Canada, the first (roughly) $8000 that anyone earns is completely tax-free. After that, there are dozens of credits and exemptions for such low wage-earners. Your roommate's rent would have been entirely deductible. Any interest on outstanding student loans would be a deduction. They'd get the GST credit. Any medical expenses they had for the year could be deducted. When you add in all those deductions and more, he most certainly would come out owing absolutely zero tax, even above the board. How exactly would he "cheat" and pay less than the zero he actually owes?
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article there are normally 2 of these every year.
RTFA, it's once every 2 years, not two every year. Not to nitpick, but you were off by 400%.
Nice apples to apples comparison. There are a number of state schools that are in the same range as your $3800 per year. State funded universities range from $700-$2000 per semester.
I'm not talking about a state/provincial school. I'm talking about a private institution. And not just any private institution - the most expensive one anywhere in Canada. At the time, Acadia's tuition was the highest anywhere in Canada, of ANY undergraduate university, public or private. I'm saying that it was impossible to find a school in Canada where it was more expensive to get an undergrad degree than Acadia. And it cost $3800 per year.
I'm comparing Canada's most expensive private institution with the USA's average tuition for private institutions. And Canada is obviously far, far more accessible.
I seem to remember paying about $250 per month for Alberta Health to cover my family.
Are you a Canadian citizen? Were you perhaps working here on a work visa? Obviously, immigrants don't get automatic and complete access to our health care system, but taxpaying Canadian citizens don't have to pay anything for health care. Dental and vision is a different story - yes, you have to pay for that. This is, however, usually covered by your employer, if you have one. Otherwise, sure, it's a few bucks a month, but nowhere near the $250 you cited.
You're incredibly wrong on just about all points. I have mod points right now and couldn't decide whether to mod you down, or reply. Since by the time I decided, you'd already been modded into oblivion, I guess I'll just add insult to injury and reply to your wildly inaccurate and ignorant ramblings.
Re: Health Care
Canada does have a problem with its health-care: the wait times. I'll grant you that in Canada, it generally takes longer to get non-life-threatening operations than it does in the US. But with a catch: in order to get this "expidited" service in the US, you have to be able to afford it. And not everyone can. So in the US, you have nice, fast service for the rich, and no service at all for everyone else. In Canada, EVERYONE gets the health care they need.
An interesting phenomena in Canada is that rich Canadians will come to the US for treatment, because even though they have to pay full price, they get it much more expidently, and higher quality.
The assumption that US healthcare is of higher quality is actually a myth. While it does cost more, and you can get it faster, it is not necessarily better. Canada has all the same drugs, treatments, and state-of-the-art equipment that the US does, with a few notable, exotic exceptions.
Secondary education also seems to be the same.
Oh no, it's definitely not. Canada's government directs much, much more funding (proportionally) towards post-secondary education than the US. The most expensive undergraduate university in Canada is still far, far cheaper than even the average tuition at private institutions in the US. When I graduated 5 years ago, my tuition was $3800 CDN/year, and that was the most expensive anywhere in the country (Acadia University). At the time, Harvard tuition was around $23,000 USD, IIRC.
In addition, the student loan system is more accessible in Canada.
I've spent time in the US, and strongly prefer Canada. While I concede that the US is very large, and attitudes obviously vary by region (just as they do in Canada), my experience with USAmericans was that they are very confrontational, conservative, closed-minded, and traditional about certain issues (gun control, gay marriage, war), and apathetic about other important issues (intellectual property laws, corporate lobbying of government to "buy" laws, DMCA, privacy issues in general).
Canada is far more progressive, socially. Our drinking age is lower (19 versus the US's 21), gay rights are far more advanced in Canada than in the US. Marijuana is de facto legal here (posession, at least - not trafficking or growing [yet]). Publication and media laws are more lax and liberal. Our freedoms and privacy have not been "bought" by powerful corporations nearly to the degree that they have in the US, although that's probably because we simply have far fewer corporations large enough to exert such pressure, by virtue of our smaller population.
Pollution is less in Canada. The violent crime rate is an order of magnitude lower, even when you consider the population difference. Our taxation rate is actually comparable to the US's, when you factor in things like health insurance, which you might not see come off your income tax bill, but you're paying anyway, giving you the illusion that you actually get to "take home" more of your salary than a Canadian. Sure, we may pay an extra $3000 more in income tax than a USAmerican making the same salary, but we're not paying $350/month for health insurance, either. Yes, I know the numbers don't add up. You're actually paying more for your health care than we are, because your government has been paid off by the pharmaceudical companies, and is allowed to gouge people for expensive medication. Canada has tougher regulations to keep medicine affordable, and thus decreasing our overall cost of health care.
OK, I'm done ranting for now.
My acoustics book said that if you put a person with normal hearing into a sound isolated anechoic chamber, and give them awhile to adjust, they will actually hear the blood flowing in their ear.
An even cheaper demonstration is to simply plug your ears. It works better in an area that's already quiet, but if you simply plug your ears with your fingers, you'll hear the blood flowing in your veins and arteries. That's what that low, rumbling noise is that you'll hear.
I used to go to private school but now I am going to public school because there isn't enough money.
*Gasp*! Not PUBLIC SCHOOL!!!
Welcome to the real world, snooty pretentious preppy bastard. You'd be surprised how well some of us "public school" tripe can turn out, if you'd lower your nose a bit and take a peek down at us.
Well... the way I see it, with Linux there is no magic registry to hide away things which will run on startup,
/etc/rc.d folder?
Uh, really? What's all this stuff in my
How timely. I recently wrote an essay (read: rant) on why E-Voting is inevitable, and why we should all just suck it up and work to make the system better, instead of fighting it and trying to preserve an antiquated and inadequate pen-and-paper system.
There should be no question in anyone's mind that electronic voting
is the future. It is impossible to argue that moving to an electronic
system is not inevitable, any more than it is possible to argue in
favour of abandoning cell phones and reverting to tin cans and string,
or abandoning email in favour of carrier pigeons.
The benefits of electronic voting are obvious and numerous: real-time
tallying, greater security (a staffer couriering a box of ballots could
theoretically manipulate them, but a staffer transmitting an encrypted
database is powerless to alter it), elimination of ambiguous selections
(eg., "Hanging/Pregnant Chads"), less time required per voter, fewer
staff required to manage an election, and less paper waste.
No system is without its drawbacks, however, and e-voting's drawbacks
are subtle and insidious. The most obvious weakness of an e-voting
system regards securing the system against manipulation. Elections
hold an enormous amount at stake - indeed, entire political careers -
and thus the temptation for covert meddling is inevitable. The
people designing and implementing the system could be bribed into
embedding backdoors into the software.
A less obvious drawback of e-voting is that it puts at risk one of
the fundamental pillars of a democracy - anonymous voting. In order
to prevent ineligible people from voting, or eligible people from
voting multiple times, their identity would have to be verified
prior to voting. However, in order to support re-counts, the
actual votes themselves would have to be somehow tied to the people
that cast them (otherwise, the tally would simply be an integer that
increments whenever someone votes for them). If the voters weren't
completely confident that their vote was guaranteed to be kept
secret, the entire democracy could be undermined. With a corrupt
incumbant, people could be intimidated into voting for them, out
of fear that the government might quietly (or worse - aggressively)
discriminate against anyone who voted for their opponent.
These problems, and the others related to e-voting are not
insurmountable. The software used to run the system should be
completely public. This would prevent backdoors from being
inserted into the system by allowing anyone with enough
computer-savvy to personally inspect the code controlling the
system. In fact, virtually all software written by the government
should be made freely available anyway, since it is OUR tax
dollars that funded its creation.
The voter anonymity could be guaranteed by assigning eligible voters
a security public/private key pair, with the mappings held in escrow
by a special elections comission. The database would only be
accessible to a non-partisan staff of top-secret-cleared employees,
and would be destroyed after the election results were certified.
The complete widespread adoption of electronic voting is inevitable.
It is not a question of "if," but rather "when." Some jurisdictions
are already experimenting with some systems, with less than
encouraging results. One of their principal mistakes is that they
have contracted out the software for the systems, and the source
code is not being made available for public inspection. Consequently,
there are pockets of the electorate who don't trust the systems,
and indeed, the systems have already exhibited troubling symptoms
of bugs that may have been detected and corrected if the software
had been opened up prior to being deployed.
American's only vote when it matters.. like who's going to be the next American Idol.
I know you were only joking, but the funny thing is, you're actually right, and network execs have noticed. The wheels are already turning for an "American Idol"-style TV show to choose a presidential candidate. The show is called "American Candidate," and although it won't let me see the page because I'm not in the US, here's the link.
The hope is that if an election is "glammed-up" like TV shows, that voter interest will be piqued. In all seriousness, a surprising large number of people actually do vote in shows like "American Idol," and "Big Brother." If we could harness that kind of excitement and focus it on something like an election, we may just be able to restore voter interest.
If you don't look like a Native American, then you yourself are an immigrant.
Hogwash! If you were born here, then you're "native." "Immigrants," by definition, were not born here. Thus, it logically follows that to be considered an "immigrant," you must be born somewhere other than the country in question (I presume you're in the US?).
Everyone who was born here is "native." It just so happens that some people have family trees containing members that migrated here substantially earlier than other people. The fact that my great-great-great-great grandfather migrated here, whereas your great-great-great-great grandfather was born here does not make you any more special than I am.
I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon Canadian, born and raised in Nova Scotia. My parents were both born here, as were their parents. I consider myself a "native Canadian."
Note, however, the important lack of capitalization of "native." I will grant you a distinction between "native" (i.e., I was born here) and "Native" (meaning my family is Metis/Inuit/MiqMaq/etc.), which for historical reasons, are still singled out.
I think it is absolutely idiotic that some people think that just because my great-great-great-great grandfather took some land from their great-great-great-great grandfather, that that somehow entitles them to some kind of special privileges now, in the present. I'm sorry, but we were both born here on North American soil, you're no more special than I am, we should all just live together and end this practice of dividing.
If you lack the ability to monitor and care for your children in a manner that you see fit, then don't have kids.
... there are no excuses to not have kids anymore. If you don't want to quit your job to care for your own offspring, then don't! We've got daycare, live-in-nannies, gangs, and community programs. Now, parents need not sacrifice their freedoms and professional lives just to get bogged down with the boring, menial task of raising one's own children. Heck, with all the video games and TV channels we have available now, kids practically raise themselves!
<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>
Nonsense! This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. We have government programs, daycare, surrogacy, artificial insemination, adoption, gene therapy, genetic counseling, selective fetal termination,
When I think back of how my family had to give up caviar and luxury cars and only live off one salary so my Mom could stay home and raise me, I'm filled with sadness. Think of all the fun times with shallow fellow corporate slaves that she missed out on to sit around and watch me grow up. If only we'd had MTV and Nintendo when I were young.
Parents today shouldn't have to trade in their Mercedes SUV and GSM cellphone and downsize from their 4-bedroom mansion and live off of one salary! BOTH parents can continue working as long as they want, and need only interact with their kids for a couple hours a day! I mean, after a long day at work, who has the energy to quiz a kid over the basic algebra they're studying for tomorrow's test? Can't someone else do it?
Can't someone else raise our kids? In this day and age - yes!
<TONGUE-IN-CHEEK>
Or would you like to be like Mr. Gates, a "rich" man who cannot buy the things that really matter?
... Uhm ... what part of this isn't a "rich, fulfilling life?"
WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Last I checked, Bill Gates lives a safe, secure life in a dream home, is happily married with 3 kids, donates enormous amounts of cash to educational facilities (in case you were going to try and suggest that his conscience isn't clear), can afford to give everyone he cares about the life they've always dreamed of, has time to pursue anything he's interested in
a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air was made almost 50 years ago. Windows 98 was released in 1997- almost 7 years ago. That's a bit of a stretch, and you know it.
*Sigh* That's precisely my point, moron. Did you even read my post? I repeat: "How long should manufacturers be obliged to support their products?" So far, all you've said is that it's less than 50 but more than 7.
So what's the magic number, genius?
(Re: Eliminating cancer treaments will eliminate cancer) Well, that is technically true. I mean, they WILL die. ... and no new cases would appear?
Why do you speak as though this "conundrum" were unique to Microsoft, or even closed-source software in general? If I buy a '57 Chevy Bel-Air convertible, and the top has a tear in it, should GM be obligated to provide me with a replacement part, if I'm willing to pay for it? Does the fact that they won't indicate that GM is a bad company for not supporting its "legacy" products?
Just how long should a company be obligated to support its older products? And why are you coming down so hard on Microsoft while ignoring the fact that this is simply standard practice, in every industry?
Lets say certain groceries can be used to make a bomb (cleaning solutions, fertilizer, lye etc.) All Ashcroft has to do is to use the Patriot act to get your grocery shopping, and sees that you've recently bought alot of these products.
Uh, buddy? They're already doing this. They've been doing it since the Oklahoma City bombing. They already monitor purchases of bomb-making materials. If you're neither a trucker nor a farmer, and you go to a farming supply store and purchase 1200 pounds of fertilizer and 400 gallons of diesel fuel, I guarantee the government will contact you. It's a simple fact of life now. They monitor those types of things.
This isn't a secret, either. It's been publicly known since shortly after McVeigh's bombing.
Where in the heck do you live where the new releases are available for rent before they're available for sale? Up here in Canada, movies show up for sale and rental simultaneously. Either you live someplace very strange, or you're just plain talking out your ass.
Wal-Mart's not going to stock an $89 DVD, but rental places will buy it at that price. Then, a few weeks later, the price plumets for everybody, and that's when retail picks it up.
You're wrong. New releases come out for sale in retail outlets at the exact same time they come available for rental at the rental stores. The difference is the license.
When you buy a movie from Walmart, take it home, and pop it into your player, you'd see an FBI warning. If you actually read it, you'd see that it says you're not allowed to charge money to exhibit or loan the movie.
The copy you rent from Blockbuster does not have that warning.
Sorry, you're way off. Instead of thinking of some imaginary bizzarro world where the correct number of pills magically jump into the right bottles without human intervention, rather think of a world where the pharmacist isn't risking mis-reading a doctor's chickenscratch on the prescription, and the correct medication is always dispensed. Think of a world where allergic reactions and dangerous drug combinations are automatically detected and alerted, rather than relying on an overworked human's powers of observation. Imagine a world where the biggest screwup that the pharmacist could make (and yes, we would still need pharmacists) is putting a couple too many or too few pills in the bottle.
Then you'd be a little closer to a more realistic and practical future for this type of tech.
Why is the cop asking for ID? He wants you to prove you are innocent.
That's the most retarted thing I've read so far this month. There's still a week to go, but I'm going to go ahead and give you the cake anyway.
Think about what you just said. It could be used to argue against ALL ARRESTS AND TRIALS. "Why should I have to go to trial and prove I'm innocent? They should hold the trial without impacting my life AT ALL, and then come get me once they've PROVEN to a judge that I'm guilty."
Get real buddy.
I for one cannot accept injustice, and stop and nothing to correct situations, even if it takes years, or a lifetime.
Spoken like someone without a wife and kids to support.
Do you think you're the only person who's ever felt this way? Do you really think that NOBODY who's ever gone up against the government has felt the way you do? Why do you think they backed down?
One word: Reality.
Cops only need one of two things to search your vehicle: probable cause, or your permission. The problem is that just about anything can be construed as "probable cause." Expired tags, misdemeanor record, or even simply being pulled over in a neighborhood known for drug deals. I've even heard that it cops have successfully argued in court that the simple fact that the driver refused permission to search constituted probable cause that he was hiding something, so the cop was justified in going ahead and searching anyway.
It's not and they don't. Police can detain a citizen only when there are specific and articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and can make an arrest only based on probable cause. "I don't want to show you my papers, and I don't want to talk to you" is basis for neither.
Ah, the things you learn watching "COPS" and other assorted reality-TV cop shows. In the US, if you take "I don't want to talk to you" to its logical extreme of actually walking (running) away from the cop who wishes to talk to you, they can chase you and arrest you, simply for running away. It's called "Felony Evasion." Note the "Felony" part. Not even a misdemeanor. A felony. You could get a felony record, just for running away from a cop. Even if you've done nothing else wrong, and they don't charge you with anything else, just simply running away is in itself a crime.
Doesn't that seem a little weird?
You want to fight something? How about stopping face-recognition software being used in public places to run a "ID check" on everyone without even their knowledge.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but what's wrong with that? Background checks simply pull up a list of someone's prior police record, it doesn't get into any personal, irrelevant details like shopping habits, dirty magazine subscriptions or what have you. It simply says "The person in the photo has been identified as John Doe. He was convicted of misdemeanor posession of a controlled substance in 1992." Or maybe, "Mike Smith is currently wanted on an arrest warrant for murdering his daughter."
What's wrong with that? Why wouldn't you want cops to be better able to find people with warrants out for their arrests?
I realize these are fictitious numbers, and I'm in no way condoning such a hideously low pay-rate, but since this is a tax discussion, I feel compelled to point out that if your roommate made the upper limit of what you said ($200/week) and never took any vacation, they'd still only be making $10,400 per year.
I don't know what the tax laws are like where you are, but up here in Canada, if your total annual income was $10,400, you wouldn't owe any tax at all. There could be no "tax cheating" going on, because he wouldn't owe anything in the first place. People who make such small amounts of money in Canada pay no income tax.
In Canada, the first (roughly) $8000 that anyone earns is completely tax-free. After that, there are dozens of credits and exemptions for such low wage-earners. Your roommate's rent would have been entirely deductible. Any interest on outstanding student loans would be a deduction. They'd get the GST credit. Any medical expenses they had for the year could be deducted. When you add in all those deductions and more, he most certainly would come out owing absolutely zero tax, even above the board. How exactly would he "cheat" and pay less than the zero he actually owes?
When was the last time your Delta pilot did a barrel roll?
December 26, 2002.