Because it's imposed by an authority acting with certain interests in mind, rather than reflecting the overall trends, preferences, and interests of the culture as a whole?
The difference is that you have a choice of whether or not to give your money to a private institution. You don't like the policy, don't go to that particular amusement park. Then their policy can't touch you.
Of course, given that the conservative agenda often invokes the Bible and supposedly "Christian" values, I'd say comparing them to Jesus' sayings is actually pretty pertinent. Chain letters as a rule are not a positive thing, but I'd rather see that than outright lies (of the "Obama is a Muslim extremist!" variety, for example)
I read somewhere that youth craves constant companionship and hates being alone.
Ah, yes, let's fall back on the stereotypes of the younger generation. My cell phone goes days with a dead battery on a regular basis, because I don't use it that much in the course of my day-to-day life, but oh, I'm only 21, I guess I'm a youth who can't stand to be alone with my thoughts for more than five minutes!
I'm sick of hearing people throw around the stereotypes about the "youth of today" like we're some kind of gigantic homogeneous morass. It's a variation on the same us vs. them mentality that's gotten the US into the ridiculous foreign policy situation it's in right now -- 'If you're not one of us, then you're all just a bunch of crazy-eyed nuts out to destroy our way of life!'
It's the not being able to afford treatment part that really gets to me. I hear all the arguments about socialized medicine being a bad thing and I do understand what they're talking about, but to me, the bottom line is this: in a non-socialized system, the rich get excellent health care, the middle class get drained by insurance companies and get some health care, and the poor get sick. Some health care for everyone is better than health care for some and no health care for others.
Call me a bleeding-heart, but I can't stand the thought of people, particularly children (who, after all, have no say in the matter) having to go without medical treatment because they can't afford it. To me, that is utterly barbaric.
The word 'socialism' and any terms related to it get a very profound knee-jerk reaction from Americans, which is unfortunate; after all, we have plenty of socialized institutions already, and most of them we are very proud of having. I can't be the only one who remembers being taught that public education was one of the cornerstones of our democracy, right? Schools, roads, firefighters, police, and a whole lot of other things are socialized systems, but our country would be in chaos without them.
no one forces debt upon "consumers" in the first place!
Right, because so many of the necessities of life can be purchased outright! A car, a home, a college education, only irresponsible idiots go into debt to buy those things! And before you try to point out that those things aren't necessities, keep in mind that YOUR particular situation != EVERYONE's situation. Where I live, there are literally NO jobs within reasonable walking/biking distance, and no public transportation because it's rural. No car = no job.
Even people who can afford better often choose not to. I know people with six-figure salaries that still shop for certain items at Target and Wal-Mart.
In fact, the signs post a lower limit on the 401 near Toronto for clear days with good weather and low traffic, and you can be ticketed for going under it.
And that tends to be only for high-speed highways, where someone going extremely slow is a safety hazard. It's very much the exception, rather than a rule. And yes, speed limits are upper limits. Other than annoying people, there's nothing wrong with going slightly under the speed limit, and honestly, I think that tends to betoken caution. More caution is a good thing in drivers, something that should be encouraged!
I can give one good reason: I have a hearing difficulty. Certain people's voices, including that of my ex-girlfriend, are very difficult for me to understand over the phone, so she and I tended to hold long conversations by text message while we were still dating but temporarily away from each other. It was hell on my bill (seeing as I DIDN'T have an unlimited plan) and between what I sent and what I received, we easily got into the thousands of messages.
If you have something that can make the world a better place (music, literature, etc) and only want rich people to enjoy it- then too bad. Don't make those things in the first place. Life isn't fair, isn't meant to be fair, and never will be; but it would certainly be MORE fair without IP.
So... what you're saying essentially is that someone who creates a piece of music, a work of literature, a computer program, anything that is not physically tangible should get absolutely no protection against anyone else making a bunch of free copies and distributing them?
They'd better not quit their day jobs in order to create such things, then!
George Washington didn't envision political parties. But given that several of the other Founding Fathers actually started political parties, I'd say it's pretty disingenuous to try and claim that they, as a group, didn't plan on them.
But how does he know what's right for the kids or not? I think taking an arbitrary stand and saying "You can't buy games unless you've got good grades" is ridiculous. It's one thing for a parent to say that -- presumably, the parent will know if the child's bad grades are actually related to gaming in any fashion. But there are a shitton of reasons why kids get bad grades, and *gasp* NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH GAMING. Let the parents parent.
Spilling hot coffee on yourself and winning a lawsuit against McDonalds because you are truly an idiot (the old bag actually settled the lawsuit out of court if I remember correctly) doesn't help our world. It proves that people like this are allowed to breed, and then calls for the Government to step in and create a law of some type that protects idiots, and the companies that idiots do business with.
Have you actually read anything directly about the case? She had 3rd degree burns and $20,000 in medical bills. Mickey D's refused to even cover her hospital treatment, so she went for as much as she could get. Liquid at 185 Farenheit isn't kind to your genitals.
1st: No, it's valid because they had an ongoing agreement with the ARC, which the ARC has now decided to ignore. J&J is perfectly within their rights to enforce that agreement. RTFA.
2nd: Don't we remember the scandals that were going around post-Katrina about Red Cross fiscal mismanagement? Donations going to directors' bonuses instead of helping out hurricane victims? Even non-profits have to dedicate some of their resources to keeping themselves going, and many times, the people at the top can wind up with very handsome salaries, especially for so-called charity organizations.
3rd: American Red Cross != International Red Cross. And there's no reason on earth why they should get to do whatever the hell they feel like just because they help people. Particularly since this isn't an issue interfering with their charitable work, it's an issue dealing with them as a commercial enterprise (selling first-aid equipment).
In conclusion, check your facts before you start ranting all over the place. Oh, and learn to count.
You think Harry Potter books are well-written?! Jesus Christ, that's a sad comment on your literacy level.
The first book was well-written in a whimsical fashion. The quality has steadily declined from there. Book 6 could have been ripped straight off of fanfiction.net, and this coming one isn't any better. I've read the leak, and spent most of the time praying that it was a hoax simply because I cannot believe that people are going to make so much money off such utter tripe.
Except that the vast majority of drug tests are urine tests. Violation of rights, I'm not getting into that issue. Violation of the body? I don't see it. It's not like they're sticking a needle in your bladder.
Besides, there is a difference between a drug test (one-time, or even multiple) and having a chip implanted that can be used to track every move.
Good job. Not even 24 hours and you're already turning the tragedy into an anti-gummint tirade. How about this? Kids shouldn't have to go to class armed in order to protect themselves. Even if someone else had been armed, people still would have died. If the nutjob who killed them hadn't had a gun, no one would have died.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh... except that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution either. Way to go.
Because it's imposed by an authority acting with certain interests in mind, rather than reflecting the overall trends, preferences, and interests of the culture as a whole?
You've never been stalked, have you?
The difference is that you have a choice of whether or not to give your money to a private institution. You don't like the policy, don't go to that particular amusement park. Then their policy can't touch you.
Of course, given that the conservative agenda often invokes the Bible and supposedly "Christian" values, I'd say comparing them to Jesus' sayings is actually pretty pertinent. Chain letters as a rule are not a positive thing, but I'd rather see that than outright lies (of the "Obama is a Muslim extremist!" variety, for example)
I read somewhere that youth craves constant companionship and hates being alone.
Ah, yes, let's fall back on the stereotypes of the younger generation. My cell phone goes days with a dead battery on a regular basis, because I don't use it that much in the course of my day-to-day life, but oh, I'm only 21, I guess I'm a youth who can't stand to be alone with my thoughts for more than five minutes!
I'm sick of hearing people throw around the stereotypes about the "youth of today" like we're some kind of gigantic homogeneous morass. It's a variation on the same us vs. them mentality that's gotten the US into the ridiculous foreign policy situation it's in right now -- 'If you're not one of us, then you're all just a bunch of crazy-eyed nuts out to destroy our way of life!'
It's the not being able to afford treatment part that really gets to me. I hear all the arguments about socialized medicine being a bad thing and I do understand what they're talking about, but to me, the bottom line is this: in a non-socialized system, the rich get excellent health care, the middle class get drained by insurance companies and get some health care, and the poor get sick. Some health care for everyone is better than health care for some and no health care for others.
Call me a bleeding-heart, but I can't stand the thought of people, particularly children (who, after all, have no say in the matter) having to go without medical treatment because they can't afford it. To me, that is utterly barbaric.
The word 'socialism' and any terms related to it get a very profound knee-jerk reaction from Americans, which is unfortunate; after all, we have plenty of socialized institutions already, and most of them we are very proud of having. I can't be the only one who remembers being taught that public education was one of the cornerstones of our democracy, right? Schools, roads, firefighters, police, and a whole lot of other things are socialized systems, but our country would be in chaos without them.
That letter is a thing of legalistic beauty. I wanted to cheer when I read it.
Sometimes, only sometimes, lawyers can be pretty damned awesome.
And is this a problem of the students, or of the teachers and professors who aren't bothering to make sure they know the rules?
Right, because no other country has suffered terrorist attacks.
Right, because so many of the necessities of life can be purchased outright! A car, a home, a college education, only irresponsible idiots go into debt to buy those things! And before you try to point out that those things aren't necessities, keep in mind that YOUR particular situation != EVERYONE's situation. Where I live, there are literally NO jobs within reasonable walking/biking distance, and no public transportation because it's rural. No car = no job.
Even people who can afford better often choose not to. I know people with six-figure salaries that still shop for certain items at Target and Wal-Mart.
In fact, the signs post a lower limit on the 401 near Toronto for clear days with good weather and low traffic, and you can be ticketed for going under it.
And that tends to be only for high-speed highways, where someone going extremely slow is a safety hazard. It's very much the exception, rather than a rule. And yes, speed limits are upper limits. Other than annoying people, there's nothing wrong with going slightly under the speed limit, and honestly, I think that tends to betoken caution. More caution is a good thing in drivers, something that should be encouraged!
Same reason why DC still doesn't get representation in presidential races. Republicans know that'd just be three more electoral votes for the Dems.
I can give one good reason: I have a hearing difficulty. Certain people's voices, including that of my ex-girlfriend, are very difficult for me to understand over the phone, so she and I tended to hold long conversations by text message while we were still dating but temporarily away from each other. It was hell on my bill (seeing as I DIDN'T have an unlimited plan) and between what I sent and what I received, we easily got into the thousands of messages.
So... what you're saying essentially is that someone who creates a piece of music, a work of literature, a computer program, anything that is not physically tangible should get absolutely no protection against anyone else making a bunch of free copies and distributing them?
They'd better not quit their day jobs in order to create such things, then!
George Washington didn't envision political parties. But given that several of the other Founding Fathers actually started political parties, I'd say it's pretty disingenuous to try and claim that they, as a group, didn't plan on them.
But how does he know what's right for the kids or not? I think taking an arbitrary stand and saying "You can't buy games unless you've got good grades" is ridiculous. It's one thing for a parent to say that -- presumably, the parent will know if the child's bad grades are actually related to gaming in any fashion. But there are a shitton of reasons why kids get bad grades, and *gasp* NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH GAMING. Let the parents parent.
Have you actually read anything directly about the case? She had 3rd degree burns and $20,000 in medical bills. Mickey D's refused to even cover her hospital treatment, so she went for as much as she could get. Liquid at 185 Farenheit isn't kind to your genitals.
1st: No, it's valid because they had an ongoing agreement with the ARC, which the ARC has now decided to ignore. J&J is perfectly within their rights to enforce that agreement. RTFA.
2nd: Don't we remember the scandals that were going around post-Katrina about Red Cross fiscal mismanagement? Donations going to directors' bonuses instead of helping out hurricane victims? Even non-profits have to dedicate some of their resources to keeping themselves going, and many times, the people at the top can wind up with very handsome salaries, especially for so-called charity organizations.
3rd: American Red Cross != International Red Cross. And there's no reason on earth why they should get to do whatever the hell they feel like just because they help people. Particularly since this isn't an issue interfering with their charitable work, it's an issue dealing with them as a commercial enterprise (selling first-aid equipment).
In conclusion, check your facts before you start ranting all over the place. Oh, and learn to count.
Except for the inability to receive/send vital phone calls (911, firefighter or doctor's cell, etc)?
Says the AC.
You think Harry Potter books are well-written?! Jesus Christ, that's a sad comment on your literacy level.
The first book was well-written in a whimsical fashion. The quality has steadily declined from there. Book 6 could have been ripped straight off of fanfiction.net, and this coming one isn't any better. I've read the leak, and spent most of the time praying that it was a hoax simply because I cannot believe that people are going to make so much money off such utter tripe.
Besides, there is a difference between a drug test (one-time, or even multiple) and having a chip implanted that can be used to track every move.
Good job. Not even 24 hours and you're already turning the tragedy into an anti-gummint tirade. How about this? Kids shouldn't have to go to class armed in order to protect themselves. Even if someone else had been armed, people still would have died. If the nutjob who killed them hadn't had a gun, no one would have died.