That is very interesting.

Now tell us about the isolation zones where your police are too scared to do their jobs for fear of immigrants killing them?

The cost of medical services is not merely out of control. It's beyond comprehension.

Let's look at this from a consumer standpoint. Let's imagine you're a rich person and do not need insurance and will pay for everything in cash. You bought your last car with pocket change. In every case (with a minor exception of the mobile phone bill) you know exactly what you will be paying and why. It seems only the medical industry never tells you exactly how much everything costs along the way.

No one [normal] would go to a restaurant and order off the menu without knowing what the prices were, so imagine being unable to know what you will spend the next time you go to McDonald's... or the grocery store... or anywhere.

There is no negotiation and no fore knowledge of what the bill will cost. It's insanity. And the industry says "it's okay... don't worry about it... let the insurance company worry about that, you just pay the co-pay." Meanwhile, the insurance industry loves this because they get more and more customers. These two sytems are designed to abuse the ignorance of the consumer and to keep them blind. When you think about how unacceptable this would be anywhere else, you have to wonder how this insane system came to be as it is.

If that were correct, that might seem reasonable if only highly dishonest. Part of the problem is waste, fraud and abuse, but that alone does not explain the extreme greed we see in government. There are personal interests for the decision makers I am quite sure. Some discovery and investigation would go a long way to expose it.

On a "from state to state" basis, there is no reasonable expecation that driving conditions will vary at the border. The roads are all made to certain standards as are the automobiles. The humans are all basically the same as well. So to have different rules in different states when it has been shown that all other things are generally equal speaks to other motives.

1. I believe many, many criminals wouldn't be criminals if there weren't so many crimes which shouldn't be crimes. (war on drugs)
2. I believe when people faced with the decision of doing a crime or not, they weigh in many factors such as what one has to lose if they are caught. And while many factors are at play, the one of "what do I have to lose?" is answered with "nothing." But there are other factors such as how the individuals are raised and what their expectations of life are at play. And if you want to go there, you could even suggest physical and genetic differences as well. [read: Kennedy risk-taking gene]

Yes... or to say it another way, if humans weren't so human, we wouldn't need laws.

Please. Reality. Okay? I really hope you know what's what and why. Blaming the masses of humans for acting the way they do fails to appreciate what people are. That some societies are more lawful than others speaks more to the level of development of that society than it does of the individuals which make up that society. Humans are humans, but when they are a part of a civilized society, only the threat of not being able to benefit from society can be effective.

(Hey, I just realized why there are so many black criminals... they don't believe they are part of society and therefore have nothing to lose... disenfranchisement.)

Anyway. Humans require laws to be more than they are, but they are still humans when they think no one is looking.

You don't sue "for" discovery and to have things like testimony entered into the public record. You can sue for all manner of things including "a cut of the profits." After all, if a government starts to make money, it needs to be shared with its investors -- the tax payers. The reality of "greedy government" is that tax money is given to favorite friends and business partners through no-bid contracts and things like that.

Discovery is a great way to expose corruption in government. It's hard to argue "national security" at a state level isn't it?

Of course they are ALLOWED. However, when government can be shown to be acting against the health and safety of the people? They are in violation of the constitution. And by making intersections less safe, they are unquestionably acting against the health and safety of the people.

You can sue for more than a monetary remedy.

Also, it brings attention to the problem and makes all manner of things a matter of public record... especially DISCOVERY of facts such as learning how they justify their decisions and who was involved in the process.

Please think more.

A 24 year old thinks he's an old timer on the internet because he likes text-based tech? Moronic.

However, the bigger question of "fear of technological change?" That's one for business everywhere -- Especially the media industries.

Conclusion after conclusion, study after study has shown that messing with traffic [especially to generate more ticket revenue] puts the public at additional risk which is direct vioation of the preamble of the constitution of the united states. In this case, the government is acting against the general welfare of the people.

When it has been demonstrated so many times in so many ways that these practices are bad for the public whose welfare they are charged, there is no reasonable excuse for that decision. In the past, this would be forgivable. Presently, it is abuse.

This has been proven to put the public at risk of property damage, of injury and of loss of life.

The people who made this decision need to be removed from office at the very least and potentially criminally prosecuted for endangerment [of a child].

They can't stop the internet without hurting themselves and a lot of other legitimate business. And continuing to sue customers? Is it really working out for them? Perhaps all the settlements which never reach the news does make it all worthwhile.

What little [music downloading/sharing] there is going on now can't really be worth the effort in my opinion. There are lots and lots of paying customers out there. I seriously doubt the "bad guys" even come close to the numbers of legitimate customers. They should be paying marketers to improve the number of customers instead of lawyers to leech off of people who don't have money to spend.

This software dependency/addiction thing really gets to the heart of what makes people do the things they do. It's "backwards" to me, but forwards for everyone else. (Makes me backwards, I know... don't have to tell me) But things rule the lives of so many others. "I won't stop using Windows because I play games!" Now it's "I won't stop using iTunes because I use an iPhone."

There seems to be no limit of stupid when it comes to supporting a bad habit.

I'm still trying not to read "wolf gene."