Good show Mr. Technicalities. The bills which have already passed over countless decades are of course now sections of law, and that is of course what is being altered. However since the language for one particular item may exist in multiple places within the code of law, the point is still the same. You're arguing semantics here.

Regardless of how long the bill is, it isn't a matter of "who read more than 100 of the 1990 pages of this thing before voting?" The bill itself, like any other bill in Washington, amends language to other existing bills and creates new language to be added. Since this is a comprehensive bill, it is altering language in hundreds of bills to do essentially the same thing in many places. If there are 14 bills that already exist that deal with one item, the bill has to make multiple language changes to those 14 bills. That could be upwards of 100 pages right there, depending on what language needs changed. People in Congress have aides for a reason. It is their job to go dig up what each part of the bill actually does and summarize it for their Rep. I find it hard to believe that a single member of Congress doesn't have a pretty darn good idea what each section of this bill does, regardless of how many pages it might be.

I'm not sure what's so "insightful" about the parent post. It should have been modded "trollbait" because it provides little useful information, only flaming.

It's funny to just now start hearing arguments against the idea of "buy insurance or go to jail," as if it's something new that were just "snuck in" in the eleventh hour. It is essentially how individual mandates work to provide universal health care coverage. The government attempts to make it possible for everyone to afford insurance. Thereby, since it is affordable, you are expected to carry insurance. If you opt not to, you are taxed as an incentive for you to simply spend that money you would be taxed on insurance instead. If you decide not to carry insurance, and then don't pay that tax, then yes, you will be fined and likely go to jail. It's called tax evasion, more incentive to just buy the damned insurance. If you expected anything else from an individual mandate, and this is somehow news to you, then you don't know much about how mandates work.

The only way to provide health care to all is generally through some combination of: producing laws which help drive down the cost of insurance, mandating everyone to carry insurance, mandating employers to provide affordable coverage to their employees, working to stop the artificial inflation of medical costs (such as downsizing broken lobbyist-rife programs as Medicare and Medicaid), and giving incentives to proper research and development of more cost effective treatments. These concepts at times may be seen as "socialist," but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want health care for everyone, then you have to either have mandates, or a completely non-profit health system that is fully funded (which likely means at least partially government sponsored).

The only "free-market" alternative is to take government out of the process entirely and hope that private charities will be capable of providing all the health coverage you need if you can't afford the expensive and bloated for-profit alternatives that will continue to swell beyond all belief without government regulation.

I for one welcome our new RFID-implanting human overlords...

The problem with this logic is that the same case could be made for black people, gays, Jews, redheads, or any other potential genetic "flaw." For example, if it were shown that redheads tend to be more likely to commit adultery by the nature of their genes, than wouldn't that - by your same logic - be an argument to not allow redheads to marry? The slope is quite slippery when one begins to argue that a genetic trait should be artificially selected out of our species, even if that trait is often detrimental, such as aggression. If this were the case, you might end up sentencing half our armed services to the death penalty.

The ruling here to cut one year off a 9+ year sentence due to a genetic trait seems in line with similar reductions due to psychological problems. There should however also be added stipulations, such as anger management therapy of some sort in order to condition against the genetic tendency. I'm glad you are not a judge, as you apparently reason the sentence should be lifted to a ridiculous end that is not even on the table for a manslaughter case (I didn't read TFA, but I highly doubt this was a 1st degree murder trial).

Performers will obviously still make their money as they have for decades, through advertising revenues, live performances, and merchandising. Music artists currently make almost nil on album sales, it all goes to the publisher/label; internet radio, blogging, and word of mouth (which can today easily stir chatter worldwide in the blink of an eye) will negate the need for their promotional services. Actors and movie producers may learn that the multi-million dollar blockbuster is giving way to cheaper, more creative forms of film, and thus they won't need to worry as much about billions of DVD sales, as they will earn plenty at the theater to cover their expenses and thensome, as well as profits from advertising revenues. Artists will find revenues as they generally always have, through sale of their works and/or odd-jobs with marketing firms; not to mention with DeviantArt, Craigslist, and other online avenues, they are able to self-promote much easier, as are their agents. Books are moving more and more toward pay-for-print and e-reader technologies. I expect other media types will as well. The costs become reduced drastically when you aren't pumping out a million copies of something and only selling 150K of them, but rather printing exactly 150K of them over a span of time as the demand exists. Software programmers will likely start distributing through secure distribution methods similar to the Steam network, where copyright infringement is next-to-impossible, which are also more cost effective as there is no print costs for the digital copies, and customers are more satisfied because they have free access to as many backups as they need for the life of the network.

The Digital Divide you speak of is shrinking exponentially daily. There are WWII veterans using Facebook and other services, and virtually no one between the ages of 5 and 20 is incapable of using the internet these days. Libraries offer free access to broadband services to the public, and WiFi hotspots are cropping up everywhere. For those incapable of using the internet, publishers can find a new niche by working with these new technologies for their clients to get their share of the market.

If anything, the decline of the multi-million dollar bands and multi-billion dollar motion pictures will see the rise of better, more diverse competition that is more freely available and cheaper. Creativity will flourish. However, I expect we are still at least 10 years off from seeing this all come to fruition. Your view is, however, far too pessimistic. The end of a 100 year old model doesn't necessitate gravitating back to older, less successful ones. You apparently have failed to look forward at the inklings of new models already beginning to take shape along the landscape of tomorrow.

This is, of course, why they announce these things in advance. ;-) Also, a better response to the opt-out reasoning to why it isn't illegal, is that in all technicality, much like a PC, you can choose not to use the XBox OS to run the hardware you've purchased. Although it's extremely unlikely you will be able to do anything with the system once you attempt to change it, and it will likely void your warranty, you are purchasing the XBox 360 and the licensing to use the OS. If you choose to upgrade that OS, and the OS now has an undesirable addition, you can always opt to make some other OS work on the system. It stinks, but that's how it would go in court. Not to mention MS didn't guarantee in your EULA that the XBox 360 would provide open access to using third party add-ons, such as memory cards and hard drives. Pretty much, you are S.O.L. here from the legal stance.

Exactly, I don't understand what this line is all about:

Let's go through a long list of things released during the 20+ year console war's history, shall we?

Nintendo Power Glove
Nintendo Power Pad
Nintendo Light Gun
Nintendo R.O.B.
That little light and magnifier thingy for the Nintendo GB?
Sega 32X
Sega CD
Atari Jaguar CD
Nintendo Super Scope
Nintendo GBA's integration into the Nintendo Gamecube
Xbox Media Center
Sony Playstation DualShock controller
PS one (compete w/ LCD screen)
Sony Playstation 2 Slim
Sony Playstation 3 Slim
The numerous add-on peripherals for Nintendo Wii

How is any of this different than what we have had for the last 20 years? It has always been the trend of console designers to milk us for every cent they possibly can on a gaming console before coming out with the next generation. Few systems (like the Xbox) have done so generally with new functionality without the need to purchase add-ons. Others have released better, sleeker versions of the original console before moving on the the next gen. Still others have given us a schlew of peripherals in an attempt to generate revenue from those looking to create "home arcade" systems.