I had to have my gallbladder out at 24. All the women in my family had problems. The doctors were shocked because gallbladder problems are almost unheard of in men around that age.
So definitely, if I were you, I'd be getting my boobs checked.
You benefit from society. Therefore, you contribute. You can't cherry pick what parts you think deserve contribution, and leave the rest out.
I mean, someone gets rich off selling trans fat and tasty cakes. That leads to obesity and health problems. Sure, people could choose not to eat them, but I bet the sale and manufacture of trans fat is big business, that you in some way benefit from indirectly. Treating obese people is big business, too. I'm setting myself up to get accused of the broken window fallacy, but really, I'm just saying that we can't bask in all the benefits of society then decide to shirk off all responsibility. That seems to be what you want to do.
And really, sometimes people make bad choices. That doesn't mean they deserve to die or suffer tortuously. Smoking is a bad decision, and lung cancer is horrible. But to just say, "well fucker you shouldn't have been smoking" is shirking responsibility. Sure, the individual chose to smoke, but to just shrug and say it's deserved is both cruel and inhumane punishment.
That person contributed to society all along the way just like you have. They ended up doing a lot of work (aka: spending a lot of money) for things they weren't responsible for, and didn't benefit from. They deserve that same favor back from society.
A lot of times the ER will just get you stable, or as stable as they can, and send you out with a not to see your normal doctor. If you need a medicine, they'll maybe give you a dose there, but they'll just send you out with a prescription you can't afford to fill.
Well, you also have to consider than the big insurance companies get bargain-bin rates for services. While you might have to pay full price for a service, chances are that your insurance company is paying less than half that.
If individuals could get the same rates as big insurance companies, then I'd definitely prefer to have a cheap insurance plan for only big emergencies, and keep the difference in an HSA.
I had to have my gallbladder removed last year. I had to pay $1000 in a deductible out of pocket, and my insurance paid another whopping $1000 to the hospital. (That, along with some small change to the surgeon and anesthesiologist, maybe another $1000 tops.)
I specifically asked the cost if I were uninsured? $16,000 -- but if I didn't have insurance the hospital would cut me a deal and only charge me $8,000.
If I could get the insurance companies rates, I'd be content with a safety-net kind of plan and a generous HSA.
The idea McCain has wasn't bad. But this implementation of that idea was going to end up costing a lot of people more for health care, by the analysis of a lot of smart folks.
Though I definitely agree, health care and employment ought not be coupled.
That said, in your example of a medicine for your newborn, I'd have called the doctor back and asked if there were no other acceptably effective alternative for a lower price. If other folks have better health insurance plans that will pay for the new and expensive medicines, then let them subsidize the research until the generics are available.
Not to troll, but it sounds like the perfect scenario to use torrents. Of course, I don't know of any service that offers downloads by torrent, but the technology certainly fits your needs.
Err... what? You pay your $10 and get a paperback. I guess you can pay $10 for the score of a song that you can also buy an MP3 of, but you still won't be able to listen to it.
The analogy between text and audio is broken, because audio requires some sort of device to convert information of some sort, usually digital these days, into sound waves. You don't need that with books. Light does that for you.
Can you really call a someone in a permanent vegetative state a person? It's possible that you could, if they lived a normal life before entering that state. But otherwise, no, probably not. They don't have the characteristics of what most people would call a "person". There are other cases, like conjoined twins where this issue has to be faced. And what about some of those strange tumors that start growing teeth, hair, eyes, etc.? Surely that is living human tissue, but it's not a "person". So we excise it when we can and throw it away. It's an unwanted, parasitic growth of human tissues inside a host. You could explain a pregnancy the same way.
Of course we can flip the irony coin, too. It's it ironic that the conservatives who are so "right-to-life" are in staunch opposition to a sane health-care-for-all system like almost all civilized countries now have. They've also been warmongers, at least recently. Oh, and they're almost universally for capital punishment.
It's almost as if the "right to life" starts at conception but ends at birth.
Of course, most people who are pro-choice are ALSO anti-abortion. It's one of those distasteful things we wish never happened, but it does sometimes. Sure, we could prevent unwanted pregnancy, but it was the now-deposed conservative administration and congress that decided "abstinence only" was the only acceptable way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Trying to teach about contraceptives was off-limits. Of course, if you looked at any set of data, you'd quickly seem contraceptives are much more effective than abstinence, because, frankly, humans want to have sex. It's normal.
Of course, your point is not as ironic as you might think. Consider: what is a bigger burden to society? Supporting an unwanted child all its life, or supporting one abortion? Compare that to seat belts. What's less of a burden to society: forcing everyone to wear a seat belt or having a higher rate of traffic-related injuries?
And what if you grow up with a mother who never wanted (or can't afford) you in the first place? That's pretty cruel. I can't imagine kids who grow up like that turn out pretty. I don't have any data on-hand but I'll hazard to speculate that they're a lot more likely to end up behind bars when they grow up, probably due to violent crimes. Who knows, maybe he'll be spared abortion only to end up getting the death penalty. There's the ultimate irony. Except that someone else was harmed along the way.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 1
But he is right, police are a necessary evil. I've known a few and some of them are losers, and many of them have some kind of authority-complex. I dunno about Lou, though.
If I wanted to hear a book read aloud, I'd easily pay double or more to hear it read by anyone other than Kindle. A friend at work has one, and it's understandable, but not pleasant. Give me a great voice actor any day, and I'll be happy to pay.
Computers have never been very good at imitating humans, either in speech, music, visual art, or anything else.
Once computers get to that point, there will be a complete paradigm shift in society which makes this particular issue seem silly by comparison.
Or it may never happen. It may be that a computer, even if we presume a superhuman intelligence in the form of AI, can never produce art in a fashion humans will enjoy. It may very well be that the fact another human created it is what makes us enjoy it so much.
I have a feeling that when computers can create art like we currently appreciate, the paradigm of what is appreciable art will change. Consider, after all, what is it that makes the Mona Lisa such a renown piece of art? It's not particularly photo realistic, and it does not portray a particularly beautiful woman. So what makes it so celebrated? Do you think a computer will ever be able to compete with that, unless (or until) we begin to recognize computer intelligences as "people"?
Animals do not have civilization. They exist in a predator-prey relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom in their habitat. Our rules don't apply to them. What logic are you using where it's okay for a rabbit to be consumed in the wild for food, but not to be used by us to preserve human life?
The apes you mention won't agree or disagree because they don't have the capacity to do so. They're animals. Anthropomorphism aside, there is no reason to mourn the loss of a rabbit in a laboratory any more than the loss of a rabbit in its natural habitat to a predator animal.
It would be the same as him memorizing the shape of a physical key. Sure, he could possibly recreate that key and access company property, but that would be a crime in itself.
However it wouldn't be right for the courts to force him to make them a copy of the key from memory for the company.
How can they prove you have something memorized? How can they charge you criminally if you don't give up something you had memorized?
Now, if the passwords were printed out, written on paper, and stored in a safe, and Child's had taken that paper with him and refused to return it, absolutely he's violating the law. But telling him he has to remember a bunch of passwords or go to jail is both cruel and inhumane punishment. I am even wondering if he couldn't use his fifth amendment rights of simply not witnessing against himself.
All else aside, The first burden of proof would be to establish that Child's actually had the passwords memorized. I have no idea how the state could accomplish that.
But really, the remaining charges are for him having modems, not about passwords.
Surely, there is major room for improvement, but there are the foundations of what you're talking about there. As for an apt-get sort of thing, where there's a big repository of software, you have to realize there's a lot of proprietary software out there. How would it work for Microsoft to get involved with managing licenses and stuff like that? I just don't know how they'd manage things like individual product activations for third party apps. Even if they could, would you want them to?
If there were some industry-wide standard for licensing, product activation, and dare I say it, DRM, then maybe something like that would work out. But in a world where most software isn't free, it's going to be really hard for Microsoft to play middle man and wrap everything up into a nice installer.
I highly suspect Microsoft has itself toyed with this idea, but took it to vendors who would be adding to their software to this repository, and the vendors said they weren't interested.
You don't get thrown in jail for mistreating your pen, and your pen cannot act of its own free will, and be put down.
If your dog eats the kid next door, it's going to be put down, but unless you can be proven to be especially negligent, then you're not criminally prosecuted for it.
It comes back to this: If you give out the passwords, or perform some task, who is going to take the fall for it.
If it's you, then you're in a lose-lose situation, and there needs to be some kind of protection for situations like that. I don't know that this is one of those situations, but I can see that, had he given up the passwords, they likely would have been coming after him when they admin accounts were misused and problems ensued.
I make it very clear at my work that if they do something I tell them is stupid, and it fucks up, don't come crying to me to fix it after hours or before the next business day. I'll work on it at a normal pace on my normal shifts, but I'm not coming in after hours to fix something they made me break unless they're going to pay me consultant rates to do so.
That depends: If you give the passwords to your boss, and your boss does something that fucks everything up, it CAN come back on you, even legally.
Plus, your job position on something like this might give you certain privileges in the organization that transcend your "boss". For example, certain privileges might have come from the highest levels of the organization, and thus require the highest levels to revoke -- not just someone in middle management.
Someone being your "boss" doesn't necessarily mean they have full authority over your job position. They might just be charged with managing you in a position that was created and empowered by higher-ups in the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but painkillers and cough syrups usually have mild opiates in them, which make the patient feel better until their body naturally recovers.
I had to have my gallbladder out at 24. All the women in my family had problems. The doctors were shocked because gallbladder problems are almost unheard of in men around that age.
So definitely, if I were you, I'd be getting my boobs checked.
You benefit from society. Therefore, you contribute. You can't cherry pick what parts you think deserve contribution, and leave the rest out.
I mean, someone gets rich off selling trans fat and tasty cakes. That leads to obesity and health problems. Sure, people could choose not to eat them, but I bet the sale and manufacture of trans fat is big business, that you in some way benefit from indirectly. Treating obese people is big business, too. I'm setting myself up to get accused of the broken window fallacy, but really, I'm just saying that we can't bask in all the benefits of society then decide to shirk off all responsibility. That seems to be what you want to do.
And really, sometimes people make bad choices. That doesn't mean they deserve to die or suffer tortuously. Smoking is a bad decision, and lung cancer is horrible. But to just say, "well fucker you shouldn't have been smoking" is shirking responsibility. Sure, the individual chose to smoke, but to just shrug and say it's deserved is both cruel and inhumane punishment.
That person contributed to society all along the way just like you have. They ended up doing a lot of work (aka: spending a lot of money) for things they weren't responsible for, and didn't benefit from. They deserve that same favor back from society.
A lot of times the ER will just get you stable, or as stable as they can, and send you out with a not to see your normal doctor. If you need a medicine, they'll maybe give you a dose there, but they'll just send you out with a prescription you can't afford to fill.
Well, you also have to consider than the big insurance companies get bargain-bin rates for services. While you might have to pay full price for a service, chances are that your insurance company is paying less than half that.
If individuals could get the same rates as big insurance companies, then I'd definitely prefer to have a cheap insurance plan for only big emergencies, and keep the difference in an HSA.
I had to have my gallbladder removed last year. I had to pay $1000 in a deductible out of pocket, and my insurance paid another whopping $1000 to the hospital. (That, along with some small change to the surgeon and anesthesiologist, maybe another $1000 tops.)
I specifically asked the cost if I were uninsured? $16,000 -- but if I didn't have insurance the hospital would cut me a deal and only charge me $8,000.
If I could get the insurance companies rates, I'd be content with a safety-net kind of plan and a generous HSA.
The idea McCain has wasn't bad. But this implementation of that idea was going to end up costing a lot of people more for health care, by the analysis of a lot of smart folks.
Though I definitely agree, health care and employment ought not be coupled.
That said, in your example of a medicine for your newborn, I'd have called the doctor back and asked if there were no other acceptably effective alternative for a lower price. If other folks have better health insurance plans that will pay for the new and expensive medicines, then let them subsidize the research until the generics are available.
I am having trouble figuring out how you view the document you just linked without a flash plugin.
(You insensitive clod!)
Not to troll, but it sounds like the perfect scenario to use torrents. Of course, I don't know of any service that offers downloads by torrent, but the technology certainly fits your needs.
Err... what? You pay your $10 and get a paperback. I guess you can pay $10 for the score of a song that you can also buy an MP3 of, but you still won't be able to listen to it.
The analogy between text and audio is broken, because audio requires some sort of device to convert information of some sort, usually digital these days, into sound waves. You don't need that with books. Light does that for you.
Of course a fetus is alive. But is it a "person"?
Can you really call a someone in a permanent vegetative state a person? It's possible that you could, if they lived a normal life before entering that state. But otherwise, no, probably not. They don't have the characteristics of what most people would call a "person". There are other cases, like conjoined twins where this issue has to be faced. And what about some of those strange tumors that start growing teeth, hair, eyes, etc.? Surely that is living human tissue, but it's not a "person". So we excise it when we can and throw it away. It's an unwanted, parasitic growth of human tissues inside a host. You could explain a pregnancy the same way.
Of course we can flip the irony coin, too. It's it ironic that the conservatives who are so "right-to-life" are in staunch opposition to a sane health-care-for-all system like almost all civilized countries now have. They've also been warmongers, at least recently. Oh, and they're almost universally for capital punishment.
It's almost as if the "right to life" starts at conception but ends at birth.
Of course, most people who are pro-choice are ALSO anti-abortion. It's one of those distasteful things we wish never happened, but it does sometimes. Sure, we could prevent unwanted pregnancy, but it was the now-deposed conservative administration and congress that decided "abstinence only" was the only acceptable way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Trying to teach about contraceptives was off-limits. Of course, if you looked at any set of data, you'd quickly seem contraceptives are much more effective than abstinence, because, frankly, humans want to have sex. It's normal.
Of course, your point is not as ironic as you might think. Consider: what is a bigger burden to society? Supporting an unwanted child all its life, or supporting one abortion? Compare that to seat belts. What's less of a burden to society: forcing everyone to wear a seat belt or having a higher rate of traffic-related injuries?
And what if you grow up with a mother who never wanted (or can't afford) you in the first place? That's pretty cruel. I can't imagine kids who grow up like that turn out pretty. I don't have any data on-hand but I'll hazard to speculate that they're a lot more likely to end up behind bars when they grow up, probably due to violent crimes. Who knows, maybe he'll be spared abortion only to end up getting the death penalty. There's the ultimate irony. Except that someone else was harmed along the way.
But he is right, police are a necessary evil. I've known a few and some of them are losers, and many of them have some kind of authority-complex. I dunno about Lou, though.
If I wanted to hear a book read aloud, I'd easily pay double or more to hear it read by anyone other than Kindle. A friend at work has one, and it's understandable, but not pleasant. Give me a great voice actor any day, and I'll be happy to pay.
Computers have never been very good at imitating humans, either in speech, music, visual art, or anything else.
Once computers get to that point, there will be a complete paradigm shift in society which makes this particular issue seem silly by comparison.
Or it may never happen. It may be that a computer, even if we presume a superhuman intelligence in the form of AI, can never produce art in a fashion humans will enjoy. It may very well be that the fact another human created it is what makes us enjoy it so much.
I have a feeling that when computers can create art like we currently appreciate, the paradigm of what is appreciable art will change. Consider, after all, what is it that makes the Mona Lisa such a renown piece of art? It's not particularly photo realistic, and it does not portray a particularly beautiful woman. So what makes it so celebrated? Do you think a computer will ever be able to compete with that, unless (or until) we begin to recognize computer intelligences as "people"?
So if I pay a nanny to read a bedtime story to my kid, I'm violating copyright?
Animals do not have civilization. They exist in a predator-prey relationship with the rest of the animal kingdom in their habitat. Our rules don't apply to them. What logic are you using where it's okay for a rabbit to be consumed in the wild for food, but not to be used by us to preserve human life?
The apes you mention won't agree or disagree because they don't have the capacity to do so. They're animals. Anthropomorphism aside, there is no reason to mourn the loss of a rabbit in a laboratory any more than the loss of a rabbit in its natural habitat to a predator animal.
Web Rings! I had forgotten all about those. Thanks for the fond nostalgic memory. :-)
Maybe one of his aide's standing by was nicknamed "Number".
It would be the same as him memorizing the shape of a physical key. Sure, he could possibly recreate that key and access company property, but that would be a crime in itself.
However it wouldn't be right for the courts to force him to make them a copy of the key from memory for the company.
How can they prove you have something memorized? How can they charge you criminally if you don't give up something you had memorized?
Now, if the passwords were printed out, written on paper, and stored in a safe, and Child's had taken that paper with him and refused to return it, absolutely he's violating the law. But telling him he has to remember a bunch of passwords or go to jail is both cruel and inhumane punishment. I am even wondering if he couldn't use his fifth amendment rights of simply not witnessing against himself.
All else aside, The first burden of proof would be to establish that Child's actually had the passwords memorized. I have no idea how the state could accomplish that.
But really, the remaining charges are for him having modems, not about passwords.
You mean like Windows Installer or Windows Marketplace (now the Microsoft Store)?
Surely, there is major room for improvement, but there are the foundations of what you're talking about there. As for an apt-get sort of thing, where there's a big repository of software, you have to realize there's a lot of proprietary software out there. How would it work for Microsoft to get involved with managing licenses and stuff like that? I just don't know how they'd manage things like individual product activations for third party apps. Even if they could, would you want them to?
If there were some industry-wide standard for licensing, product activation, and dare I say it, DRM, then maybe something like that would work out. But in a world where most software isn't free, it's going to be really hard for Microsoft to play middle man and wrap everything up into a nice installer.
I highly suspect Microsoft has itself toyed with this idea, but took it to vendors who would be adding to their software to this repository, and the vendors said they weren't interested.
Right. And if they are pointed at you, they will heat YOUR water.
Paul Atreides, is that you?
If you can, record a video of the disassembly. You can watch yourself do it backward when you need to reassemble.
You don't get thrown in jail for mistreating your pen, and your pen cannot act of its own free will, and be put down.
If your dog eats the kid next door, it's going to be put down, but unless you can be proven to be especially negligent, then you're not criminally prosecuted for it.
It comes back to this: If you give out the passwords, or perform some task, who is going to take the fall for it.
If it's you, then you're in a lose-lose situation, and there needs to be some kind of protection for situations like that. I don't know that this is one of those situations, but I can see that, had he given up the passwords, they likely would have been coming after him when they admin accounts were misused and problems ensued.
I make it very clear at my work that if they do something I tell them is stupid, and it fucks up, don't come crying to me to fix it after hours or before the next business day. I'll work on it at a normal pace on my normal shifts, but I'm not coming in after hours to fix something they made me break unless they're going to pay me consultant rates to do so.
That depends: If you give the passwords to your boss, and your boss does something that fucks everything up, it CAN come back on you, even legally.
Plus, your job position on something like this might give you certain privileges in the organization that transcend your "boss". For example, certain privileges might have come from the highest levels of the organization, and thus require the highest levels to revoke -- not just someone in middle management.
Someone being your "boss" doesn't necessarily mean they have full authority over your job position. They might just be charged with managing you in a position that was created and empowered by higher-ups in the company.