Well since he just fought tooth and nail to keep the individual portion of ACA from being delayed, even to the point of shutting down the USG, only to have it revieled that the sign-up web-site went live DOA, I think he pretty well shot his wad politically.
Please pray tell what could possible be bad enough to blackmail the President who's administration has been a constant string of scandals; would rape, drug dealing, murder be enough? Obama is making Nixon look like a choir-boy.
Actualy to me it seems like letting the slaves choose which foreman beats them when they are tied to the whipping-post.
I'm usually libertarian leaning, but this is one area where the state or better yet DOT needs to set some realistic standards for traffic light timing; in this day and age there is no excuse for not having accurate and consistantly timed lights. We have NTP and GPS, if I'm driving the speed limit cross town, hitting a red light should be rare anyways.
I wouldn't be surprised if you had the desired qualifications, that it would be typical that your student loan debts would be paid off as part of your signing bonus if your contract was long enough.
The odd thing about China is one is never sure if something the government does is an official action or if it one of the loose cannons going rogue.
More likely made sure all of the Anti-virus vendors had a copy of the virus so it could be added to the signatures. I'm sure that since computer and network security is a major part of their mission, they had back-channels into all of the AV vendors and when they effectively say this "this shit is bad, we wouldn't wish it on our enemies" people pay attention.
Prosecution will never happen, everybody is prohibited by law from testifying to whether the documents Snowden stole are authentic or not, i.e. the infamous "I can neither confirm nor deny", and Snowden is unlikely to respond to a sumons to testify.
So the Constitution states that it is not the use of collected personal information, but "unreasonable" collection and searches for information that is disallowed. The issue then swings on what could be considered reasonable.
The precise definition of what is reasonable is right there in the 4th amendment: It is probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, formally blessed as acceptable by the issuance of a warrant which describes the places to be searched, things to be seized. Once the government meets that standard of reasonableness, they may then commence to search.
It does not seem to me that collecting all telephone metadata from everyone is a narrow enough criteria to be considered reasonable.
You don't get to say what is reasonable; the 4th already does that. Is the target here a person's papers? Their home? Their property (effects)? The actual person themselves? If so, then if the standard of reasonableness explicitly laid out in the 4th is met, the government may search; otherwise, not.
The question here turns entirely on who has the ownership of that data, and what the obligations are with regard to it. Does the metadata on my calls meet the definition of being part of my papers? I think it's pretty obvious that it does, but that's just one person's opinion. If that data contains my private information, then the 4th applies. If, however, the data is not in any way "my" data/papers, then the question moves on as to the government's rights with regard to coercing data from the clutches of corporations.
Before anyone leaps to the conclusion that having done business, for instance, with the phone company or an Internet provider somehow magically makes that data public, let me point out that a letter between you and I, or you and your bank, is very definitely part of your papers. If you think the phone company being a party to your data makes your papers public, please explain why that obtains, but the letter you wrote to you bank is still in the domain of your private papers.
I think of an autoplay video as direct evidence that someone is an incompetent writer, and I leave immediately. If you can cannot express your thoughts in a quotable, orderly context, you are very likely not worth my time.
Video is information pablum. When you're talking to the intelligent, the written word is the way to go. Only use video when nothing but a moving image can serve (tip: rarely, if ever, is this the case); only use still images when words will not serve. Yes, an image is worth a thousand words: The problem is, they're not your words, they are the viewer's words.
I cannot emphasize enough how writing encourages discourse and thought, while video rarely does anything of the sort.
While "discipline" helps, the parents have to be onboard with the program to insure consistency, yet ADHD tends to run in families so the parents are likely to be ADHD as well and are therefore unlikely to be fair and consistant disciplinarieans themselves. Family Therapy with medication as an adjuct is more likely to be effective.
All the above, except rather than GMOs I'd go with parents who wean their kids off baby formula in a botttle to Mountain Dew in a sippy cup.
The ACA is something, and something is better than nothing, but the medical industry is saturated with greed and gouging. Take the obscene profits out of medical care and there is no incentive for mass misdiagnosis.
Sure, just got a quote for $1,095.00 a month with a $10,000.00 annual deductable, that seems worse than nothing to me. I have a hard time seeing ACA as anything other than Obama's version of corporate welfare, at best, at worst a calculated effort to move the country into full on socialized medicine.
You can easily spend an hour finding the best price for a medication. You can spend days pricing out a procedure. It's true that part of this is due to lack of incentives. Some places will flat out refuse to quote you a price, and you can bet the ones who do quote you do not consider it binding. They can sprinkle some different meds and have a couple extra doctors glance at your chart to double your bill.
I just go to Michigan drug prices and look up anything that's going to get refilled and move the Rx to the cheapest provider, the Meijers chain has a lot of common antibiotics for free, Walmart has free statins as well.
Just type your drug name and "price" into google and you'll find something helpfull.
"non-profit" hospitals abound in the U.S, yet they still charge almost the exact same rates as your evil "for-profit" ones. They all use a pricing sheet called the "chargemaster" that they guard zealously.
For the most part the third-party payers have a list of Usual and Customary Charges and it's the average what caregiver's charge for the regon and class of providers, Medicaid pays about 60%, most other commercial insurances pay 80%; the Hospital figures out what they want to be paid, and devides that by their re-imbursement rate and charges that amount. What they charge is higher than what they will be paid, (on purpose) and they writeoff the difference if the accept your insurance. This gives the caregivers an increasing reimbursment, while still being able to whine about how much they have to write off! If you don't have insurance your double screwed because you'll have to pay what they want plus what they normally expect to writeoff.