American is a nationality. Socialism is an ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive. I am an American socialist.

Besides, do you object to our socialist police force, our socialist fire department, our socialist postal service, our socialist military, our socialist public education system, our socialist health regulatory agencies (which make decisions for us about what food is safe to eat and water is safe to drink and which drugs are safe to take)? How about our socialist public roads? Or our socialist health insurance program for seniors? What about our socialist unemployment insurance?

Last I heard, those were all American. And last I heard, most Americans liked them.

Damnant quod non intellegunt.

You say the 20 to 40% is a made up number. That instead they have 3 to 5% profits. Well, maybe on paper that they're reporting. Why is it that the latest health care bill mandates that by 2012 (I think) that Health Insurers must have no more than 15% overhead (85% must go to health care and health improvement programs) including administrative costs and profits. Social Security operates with 2% overhead. So, they're allowing for 13% profit. The insurance companies are screaming like it is the end of the world. Why? Because currently they're yanking down way more in profits. They're hiding the profits in bullshit "Administrative Overhead" (like taking Golf trips to Bangladesh to have sex with underage children). I don't trust this industry as far as I can spit!

I fully agree that a helmet is a great idea. I'm just saying that there is bound to be a lot of things other people also think are great ideas as well that you won't like so much.

Of course, I have heard from others that they prefer NOT to wear a helmet because it increases the chances that they'll end up quadriplegic rather than dieing in an accident. Right or wrong, that's a choice they've made. It is probably cheaper for the taxpayer if they just die rather than requiring rehab and special equipment for decades.

I certainly would not think that refusing medical coverage because someone wasn't wearing a helmet, butcher's glove, plate mail, etc to be a good idea.

It's also incontrovertible that not skydiving will prevent 100% of skydiving related injuries. The same for rock climbing, skateboarding, etc. Many people do things that are not really NECESSARY but do carry a risk of medical expenses. Those who don't are often sedentary, and so have a risk from that.

Ah, well then I suppose we disagree on the definition of "theft," (I would have thought that most would say that wrongness is the difference between taking and theft, just as it is the difference between killing and murder) but that's OK. So you are saying that something can be "theft" but not wrong.

How then is it a criticism of health insurance reform to call it "theft" if calling it "theft" doesn't mean it is wrong? Why isn't it a kind of "permissable theft" like seizing an enemy's property in wartime?

by JonKatzTheSecond (63445274) on 20-03-18 22:01 (#815223905)

By season 14, Futurama seemed to outlive itself. Its humor was meant for the early years of the 2010s when the world was scared of global warming and still revered "Heroes" and "Lost" as the pinnacle of science fiction. When three-eyed omnivores and impoverished Jewish space lobsters were still 'hot' - and not in a weird way. It was a time when an old man could still dream of leading an army of mutant gorillas to global conquest, and maybe, just maybe it was possible (the U.S. still wasn't frozen over and Joe Biden hadn't developed his mighty telekinetic powers). A time when Seattle wasn't a gaping canyon and the Grand Canyon wasn't filled with coffee cups and flannel shirts, and the President still hadn't solved the "War on Terror" with a game of "Quarters" and two-falls-out-of-three Jell-O Wrestling, only to lead to tyrannical world domination by the Mormons. It was a simpler time. Futurama is as dead to me now as electric cheese and skeet shooting using Senators.

Seems like the actual barrier could be near the road with some guard rails in front of it and the rain reservoir quite far away. Reducing the risks somewhat. Besides the news networks would love this.

Um, actually most of what Google and their Counsel listed would not be hard to prove. A) Account is created originating from IP's owned by Viacom. These accounts also occasionally log in from Kinko's. B) Viacom owned material is uploaded from IP's owned by Viacom. C) Accounts accused of uploading Viacom owned material log in occasionally from Viacom owned IP's. Said accounts were created at Kinko's. D) There'd be a paper trail for all DMCA requests to have materials deleted. E) Requests from accounts created/used on viacom IP's requesting material to be restored. If such accounts had ever logged in from a Viacom owned IP or was created on a Viacom owned IP, it would show some potential for what Google is saying. This is especially true if all of the accounts ONLY uploaded Viacom related materials.

Of course denials are up from Bush times. What this DOESN'T include is the "denials out of total number of requests". Obama encouraged people to throw fuckloads of FOIA requests at the government. Then Obama issued a directive to default allow requests rather than default deny. It makes sense that the percentage of requests denied will drop, while total number of requests denied will increase.

The conclusion presented in the article is like saying "modern medicine doesn't help people". I mean, look at how many people died 5000 years ago. Now look at how many die today. They fail to take into account the total population.

If Google or any big company wanted to change the game, all they have to do is throw some money at whoever owns the h264 patents, and buy them out to open it up.

Yeah exactly like with Mono. If Microsoft was really wanting to launch a patent assault over mono they would have done it years ago they wouldn't be waiting for some unspecified time in the future to do so. It's the same FUD as the supposed "java trap" that also never materialized and was never going to materialize.

Microsoft will not launch an actual patent war against Linux, Microsoft is greedy and unethical but they are not stupid. MS know that a patent war is the equivalent of a nuclear war, no one will win it and losing the least is not acceptable to MS. Not to mention that it will go halfway to sinking MS even if they manage to destroy Linux (very big if).

MS management is smart enough not to (they are also smart enough to keep using the FUD to scare people, this is what I mean by unethical) and MS shareholders will never allow it as it will be an expensive and drawn out court case (al a SCO) which the chances of winning are dubious at best.

How is it a scam to give paying customers what they want? This is just capitalism at work. If customers don't like the latest crop 3D movies they won't pay to see them, and the fad will die quickly. If they do like it enough to pay $10+ a ticket, then what is the complaint?

One can grouse about poor quality and cheap conversions, but right now 3D entertainment is in its infancy. It's little more than a novelty. But hey, isn't novelty and vapid thrills what movies are all about? It's not like this is something even remotely important. Besides if this is successful the technology will improve, the quality will improve, and the infrastructure will be upgraded.

It's no different than color movies. If people want to see an old B&W movie in color, why not colorize it? If they want to see Titanic in 3D who cares? The original is still there for purists.

Tech is always this way: you live with half-baked goods for years before the technology matures. Some people (early adopters) pay for it, others stay away until later. The Apple II was a scam by this logic.

Oh, come on. This is happening in Sydney. Nobody will even notice, it will look like a typical weekday.

Claiming that a company lacks empathy is like claiming that democracy lacks a rosemary-garlic flavor. Lacking the capacity for emotions doesn't make something inherently evil or bad, it's simply a trait shared by essentially everything that is not human.

You are right, which proves you wrong. A corporation doesn't "feel" anything, including ethics, morals, pathos, empathy, responsibility, etc. However, the law has set them up as "legal persons." So a corporation is a legal person that doesn't feel those things. You say that aren't a person and shouldn't be treated as such for comparisons of emotion, however the law defines them to be people and they get to act like people. So you are arguing for them being amoral profit-driven sociopaths. You claim an exception because they aren't human, but the law does assign them person status, so the exemption may be philosophical, but the law trumps that in practice.

Truth in Labeling: one of the few simple and valid places for government involvement. Don't censor, don't restrict, don't control, just insist on ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL labeling so those with allergies can avoid their problems. (I include intellectual and emotional allergies just like physical ones.)

If anything, the question should be why this needs a new law instead of being considered just like any other kind of forgery or fraud.

For the sticklers - having different outbound and inbound numbers (like call centers do for outbound vs. incoming switchboard) is not spoofing if the same entity owns both numbers, any more than having multiple agents answering the phone is spoofing the company identity.

I doubt it, since it's a continent. The other is an ocean.