Nobody is being forced to buy the most expensive insurance policies.

Catastrophic insurance policies, the only reasonable policy for a young person, are dead. The only plans that meet the criteria are larded up past any plans I ever had or needed.

"Assuming that they don't qualify for one of the numerous exemptions written into the law."

Code for "are not Democratic contributors or unions or any other Democratic groups that get exemptions". Yes we already know about the Democrat's use of government as a hammer to stamp out ideological opponents.

Had the GOP been voted in, it would have meant that nobody would have health insurance because the rates would continue to climb

It would have meant health care rates would have fallen after the GOP voted in the health care reforms they were asking for, like caps on malpractice and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.

I'll let you have the last response since all you do is yammer Democratic talking points; further discussion of the reality of he stormy waters into which we are sailing is pointless. I'll just watch over the next year as you and the rest of the people who don't understand the reality of what Obamacare was get the full dose you deserve, dealt at the hands of the IRS. Enjoy!

Voting for a Republican is going to make it all better huh.

No.

But it would have kept the IRS out of healthcare enforcement.

And it would have meant the entire population of the U.S. would not shortly be forced to buy the most expensive insurance policies (which is why all of the insurance companies backed Obamacare).

Never dealt with people bigger than yourself obviously.

So you are claiming that in the history of dealing with corrupt governments, people have not been killed and property not destroyed?

I'll let the reader decide which one of us is the idiot.

Google glass are likely to be successfully.

Says the AC with no ability to tie the prediction back to them...

You know that in five years you will come off like the Gates quote about 512k RAM.

How extraordinarily douchey. You are most likely recorded by hundreds of video cameras every day.

I agree that spraying someone with something that could blind them is not really acceptable - in fact it's more assault than "douchey".

However you have to remember these people are mostly recording NOT in public. Yes in public video cameras are everywhere. But then you got to a party at someone's house or a booth in a restaurant, now you are not nearly so much "in public" - but there are glasses users there. What if you are on a date with someone wearing them, do you not have a reason to expect your entire date would not be recorded?

That's the real problem, is that Glasses wearers extend the practical notion of what is "public" to anywhere they go. I mean, how long before the auto-recorded segments are subject to subpoena because something happened at a party?

So I wouldn't spraypaint people wearing them, but I don't think it's a good idea to wear them most places you would go.

That is the best summary I have yet seen as to the problems someone who is inherently a technologist can see with the product.

The other aspect of this I find troubling in a consumer product, is that SO MUCH money is spent getting rid of glasses - Lasick, contacts, etc. - that I can't see how they can find much of a market that wants bulky things you have to wear on your head all the time.

Even he watches like Pebble, I can see some appeal to them for normal people even though I don't want one myself (got rid of watches years ago). But Google Glasses, I cannot see the appeal outside of a very tiny minority.

It's an odd choice of words from a man whom the Belize police found suspicious

Police try to frame MCaffe, he escapes.

Next best thing - burn down his house.

I failed to see why this does not greatly support his narrative of what happened. He's not even there to burn it down himself...

I mean, lets say a corrupt government was after you. Why do you think it unlikely they would burn down your house after you crossed them?

That raises a serious issue, the current Google Glasses are in no way properly sized for full-scale rabbit or tiger outfits.

All government entities were new at one point. Your statement would suggest that all all government entities are a bad idea.

The evidence is in; it's more true than not. You sit on the wrong side of this very obvious fence what with the IRS being used as a hammer by the Democrats.

if we accept that there is violence then it should follow that there will be one organization that is capable of more violence than any other.

That sounds like a fucking horrible idea. I'll end this with one word:

Nazis.

It should not follow or be desired that there be one group more able to deal violence than another, the best situation is balanced competing groups.

This is like arguing the Wright brothers' first airplane didn't change anything because it could only fly a few dozen feet.

That would only be the case if at the same time people were already flying twin engine cubs around.

People have been crafting guns at home for decades. The 3D printing aspect adds nothing to that truth.

What it does show is how easily people can be led into an irrational fear of technology.

What you don't seem to understand is that laws are meant to keep people safe and secure, not just punish people after the fact.

No, most laws are in fact meant to punish people before the fact.

The speed limit laws are there because some people can't drive well or maintain cars, so they punish those who can with lower speeds than they could drive in perfect safety.

Gun laws exist because people have to "do something" when criminals use guns, even though criminals don't purchase firearms legally and ignore laws. So everyday people who just want to buy and enjoy guns have to jump through pointless hoops and delays.

Public nudity laws exist because some people are prudes and some people don't have a reasonable sense of when clothes are appropriate. So the people who just want a good tan at the beach or in the backyard are punished.

Basically most laws are no different than the stupid warnings you see on every packaged product to not drink a bottle of sunscreen or not to insert canned beans up your anus. They are not really there to protect anything, they are just there because it made someone feel good to pretend they were helping.

At least the Millenials care about their fellow humans.

I have seen no indication of that whatsoever.

Oh sure they SAY they care. Actions? None at all. All efforts are token and vapid.

You can't even bring yourself to post with a real username; truly ironic. A model of impermanence that typifies your kind.

the shitstorm over patriot groups applying for a form of charity

The real shitstorm is over the IRS also sharing tax data from conservative groups with liberal groups.

If you are OK with that, good luck when Republicans eventually take power again...

You can vote out the government

No, not even theoretically can you do that. All you can do is vote IN leaders, who MIGHT be able to make changes in government organizations... but the organizations are very entrenched, and have many levers to prevent the people voted in from making changes.

This is why it is such a bad idea to form any new government entities, because they exist only to keep existing and to exert more and more control.

To claim all of the antagonism is simply about profit is laughable; if it were then companies would logically work together to maximize profit across an industry.

Large company battles, ESPECIALLY in the case of technical companies, have never been about money. They have been about control and dominance and vision. Every company wants to be the one that controls where the future goes in the field they compete in.

Just look at any behavior large companies behave in, and almost never does it make sense from a profit perspective. But if you think about it in terms of strategic control, it almost always does (especially in hindsight).