I dont' get the classic American aversion to nationalized health care - I suspect it's a holdover from the "oh no, socialism/communism is EEEEEVIL!"
Actually, you nailed it. That's exactly why I don't want socialization of our nation. America was born out of a mistrust of the system (among many other things), a feeling which pervades our society to this day. If you ask me what I want out of a government, it's pretty small, comparatively. National defense, police, a stable economy, just to name the basics. I mistrust our government (and indeed, really, any government), because it has proven itself time and time again to be inept. Everything it touches turns to crap, not gold. It's really the anti-Midas. Call me a cynic, I just don't trust the government to run a lean and efficient health care system. Some oversight, sure (the oversight that we have now is definitely not working), making sure people play fair, but other than that, stay out!
Actually, a lot of jurisdictions have laws requiring that out of area persons paying sales tax be refunded for the tax paid. Until recently, it looks like the entire State of Canada had this on the books as well, though it seems to be changing:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/nonresidents/visitors/qa-e.html
the sales tax encourages saving
Bullshit. Find me one person that said "I'm going to save money because my sales tax is higher." That's total crap, used as propaganda. There are reasons for a sales tax, but that sure as hell isn't one of them.
What about those of us who do not want to support these things? Instead of saying "healthcare's really expensive, the Government must pay for it because the citizens are too broke", should we be saying "Why is healthcare so expensive?" and looking into streamlining it? I don't think you could convince me that there isn't any fat to be trimmed out of the healthcare system, either.
Personally, I'm trying like hell to keep a system like your Canadian Socialized Medicine out of my country (the good ol' USA), so it doesn't bankrupt us. Don't want to make the downfall of our Government take place any faster than it already is!
Just remember that physics has a way of playing back.
Yup, I've found that one out the hard way a few times (car vs. bike? yea, car wins)
I also sincerely hope that, when it does, you're the only one involved...
Of course, I don't want to endanger anyone unnecessarily. Running through canyons with good visibility at low traffic times (and low deer times, too), using race tracks (that especially), etc. If I'm doing something stupid, and eliminate myself from the gene pool, I don't want to take anyone with me.
No, that blanket statement is entirely incorrect. I happen to drive two very high performance vehicles, one a motorcycle, the other a car. Both of which vastly outperform your typical car. I don't care what others think of me, nor am I showing off. No wheelies, stoppies, or the like on my bike, no burnouts, crazy driving, etc, in my car. What I enjoy is the ability to play with physics, drive fast, corner hard, and enjoy life at a higher level of performance. It really has nothing to do with showing off. As a matter of fact, I get really cheesed off when people try to race me at stoplights, simply because my car has a (stock) spoiler on it. I have nothing to prove to anyone. It's something that I enjoy, and screw you for trying to pigeonhole me into a category.
An interesting point is that a lot of people that hold your viewpoint (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, as you did not say this) would advocate strict laws preventing the creation and use of vehicles fitting your example description (200 horsepower V6 in a compact car). Some people actually like a vehicle with stats like that, and indeed a lot better. So long as the car meets minimum efficiency / pollution control standards, so it is indeed *not* hurting anyone else, I'm free to buy it. Keep the government out of my life, thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, the GGP is right, as far as I'm concerned. I actually can care less, as acceleration and top speed are of paramount importance to me. As a matter of fact, I couldn't care less about efficiency, but if I happen to find a vehicle capable of mind bending acceleration, insane top speeds, and great gas mileage, I'll buy it over a vehicle with the first two qualities, but not the third. Great example, a late model sportbike: 120ish horsepower, 160ish MPH top speed, and 40+MPG. And it's fun to ride.
What the GP fails to mention is that he's tragically unamusing, and during long commutes, is satisfied doing the speed limit, getting in the way of people that want to have fun. Sheesh.
I suspect that paying for carbon credits would make our life interesting.
Yup, Indulgences worked great for the Catholics! Carbon credits solve nothing, and create more bureaucracy and more waste of resources. What's needed is to fix the problem, not treat the symptoms.
And furthermore, one thing that I find that makes C#'s generics completely useless is that the language prevents you from using the "genericized" collection without its generic type tags. For instance:
public class Foo<T> {
}
public class Bar : Foo<int> {
}
public class Bas { public void add(Foo pArg) {
} }
Note that the above code will not compile, as you are not allowed to make a reference to Foo without its generic type. In other words, To use Foo, I then have to make Bas typed, and anything that internally uses Bas must then be typed, etc. In my opinion, outside of the collections, C#'s generics are completely useless (this reason is why they split IList and IList<T> into two separate namespaces, and why you cannot use the two interchangably).
Java's generics allows the above operation, but still preserves the underlying type safety.
I wouldn't be so quick to defend the Romans and their historical landmark preservation strategies... If I recall correctly (from a recent History channel show), they built the Colosseum on top of Caligula's gardens, which, given the reign of insanity he put forth, could have been preserved to say "never again", but instead, it was better to raze them and put something else in their place.
So, if WWI was fought as a Chemistry war, and WWII was the war fought with Physics, what's WWIII going to be? The war fought with Quantum Physics? String Theory? This could get pretty messy!
Buddy, I count 23 video cameras on my 25km bike ride from home to work. That's not counting the still cameras on major intersections looking for speeders and people running the stop lights.
I can absolutely guarantee that none of those cameras are owned by the United States Military (unless you're biking through Baghdad). Sure, the police own the red light and Gatso cameras (the city in which I live seems to have recently put them on every friggin street corner), but no, again, not the military. And, last time I checked, police != military.
I'm not sure what city in which you live, but I can also guarantee that the other cameras of which you speak are not owned by the military. Here's a good example of non-traffic cameras not being owned by the military, from the U of Wisconsin (of which I have no affiliation, it's too cold there): http://badgerherald.com/news/2003/11/20/overhead_c amera_help.php
You're being a bit paranoid here, don't you think?
Nope. I don't affiliate. If I had to be pigeonholed into choosing a party, it'd be the Libertarians, but still, they put up crazy nut jobs for candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
What about those of us who do not want to support these things? Instead of saying "healthcare's really expensive, the Government must pay for it because the citizens are too broke", should we be saying "Why is healthcare so expensive?" and looking into streamlining it? I don't think you could convince me that there isn't any fat to be trimmed out of the healthcare system, either.
Personally, I'm trying like hell to keep a system like your Canadian Socialized Medicine out of my country (the good ol' USA), so it doesn't bankrupt us. Don't want to make the downfall of our Government take place any faster than it already is!
An interesting point is that a lot of people that hold your viewpoint (and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, as you did not say this) would advocate strict laws preventing the creation and use of vehicles fitting your example description (200 horsepower V6 in a compact car). Some people actually like a vehicle with stats like that, and indeed a lot better. So long as the car meets minimum efficiency / pollution control standards, so it is indeed *not* hurting anyone else, I'm free to buy it. Keep the government out of my life, thank you very much.
As a matter of fact, the GGP is right, as far as I'm concerned. I actually can care less, as acceleration and top speed are of paramount importance to me. As a matter of fact, I couldn't care less about efficiency, but if I happen to find a vehicle capable of mind bending acceleration, insane top speeds, and great gas mileage, I'll buy it over a vehicle with the first two qualities, but not the third. Great example, a late model sportbike: 120ish horsepower, 160ish MPH top speed, and 40+MPG. And it's fun to ride.
What the GP fails to mention is that he's tragically unamusing, and during long commutes, is satisfied doing the speed limit, getting in the way of people that want to have fun. Sheesh.
Hey! We have those! "Express Lanes". And guess what! NOBODY uses them! They'd rather sit in traffic than pay the extra tolls.
You forgot to cite your source, Parrot!
Yup, it's about time we sent the Scorpions into space.... maybe they'll get Hit Between the Eyes?
Not surprising, considering the Russian's (er, Soviet's, whatever) first Cosmonaut was a dog... B. I. N. G. O.! And orbit was his name-o!
In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia jokes REALLY work on you!
Java's generics allows the above operation, but still preserves the underlying type safety.
I wouldn't be so quick to defend the Romans and their historical landmark preservation strategies... If I recall correctly (from a recent History channel show), they built the Colosseum on top of Caligula's gardens, which, given the reign of insanity he put forth, could have been preserved to say "never again", but instead, it was better to raze them and put something else in their place.
So, if WWI was fought as a Chemistry war, and WWII was the war fought with Physics, what's WWIII going to be? The war fought with Quantum Physics? String Theory? This could get pretty messy!
Not that I need to know, or anything, but where does one acquire a giant whale penis, anyway? Is there a black market for them?
I'm not sure what city in which you live, but I can also guarantee that the other cameras of which you speak are not owned by the military. Here's a good example of non-traffic cameras not being owned by the military, from the U of Wisconsin (of which I have no affiliation, it's too cold there): http://badgerherald.com/news/2003/11/20/overhead_
You're being a bit paranoid here, don't you think?
Godwin's Law for the uninitiated.
George Lucas?
Yup, that's right folks. If the democrats win, it's fair. If the republicans win, they cheated. Yep. That's good old democracy for you.
Nope. I don't affiliate. If I had to be pigeonholed into choosing a party, it'd be the Libertarians, but still, they put up crazy nut jobs for candidates.