A lot of the shelters are downright evil, though, especially the religious ones. A lot of them really push religion hard, and some of them won't help you if you don't spend an hour in church or whatever. Get 'em while they're vulnerable, then do just enough to make sure they receive your message.
From a cost-benefit point of view, is having your food and housing needs taken care of, in exchange for attending a one hour weekly meeting, really that bad? Many of us here try to go to 40 hours worth of meetings a week to cover our food and housing needs.
not for society to make.
I'm pretty sure that the medium for transactions is a decision made by society. If society decided not to allow physical objects to represent legal tender, I don't think that you'd be able to make many financial transactions with the physical object of your choice.
Why would you ever want a cashless society? Cash is one option you have. Taking it out removes an option and therefore freedom.
So you can audit and authorize where it goes. I can't audit a guy stealing cash from my wallet.
They set the standards for the TCP/IP protocol, the one used by the packets which conspired with the Tor network to move data around untraceably!
Except that she's going after the part that made tracking a source difficult/impossible. With normal TCP/IP you can track where packets are coming from.
You mean the guy screamed about the government spying on us and that we can't trust closed source anything for decades. Guess what he turned out to be right.
But the government is intercepting data primarily from open protocols to do the spying. I don't think that closed source had anything to do with that.
They were against 'after the fact' options.
How is an IUD after the fact?
By the time the dust of WW2 had settled, the current system of employer-provided health insurance was firmly established.
I suspect that if Congress didn't provide tax breaks to companies who did employer based health care that the 'firmly established system' would have dried up quite quickly. In fact, I bet if Congress removed the tax break, and instead issued a 1% tax on employer based health insurance, the 'firmly established system' would vanish from everyone's existence in less than one pay cycle.
I get what they're trying to do, but this seems like the wrong approach. You don't fix discrimination with more discrimination, even if it's in the opposite direction.
Until the 'problem' is correct that's exactly what you do; unless hiring assassins to thin out the existing 'problem' is an option.
Storage like this is handy for family photos, I'm not sure I would use it for anything else.
That's the reason I went with flickr. OneDrive will talk about the photo sharing experience, but it kind of sucks. It's great for the scenario of creating a folder of pictures to be shared with one person one time, but on a continuous basis of posting photos for people to see, it sucks. Flickr on the other hand is designed just for photo sharing, and it does it fabulously.
This is a particularly evil kind of economic event where costs rise and and employment drops.
But what if habits change due to the cost increase? The volume of gas consumed is not an unchangeable constant.
There is no such thing as "too cheap."
Yes there is. When the government takes out loans to reduce the price of an item, that item is too cheap. Or if the price of the item doesn't cover negative externalities of creating that item, the price is too cheap. In Pre Arab Spring Egypt the price of bread was too cheap. The government was getting into debt subsidizing the price of wheat to keep the masses happy. Once the government was overthrown and the price of bread made it to market values, a lot of Egyptians realized that they now had a bunch of debt on their hands and more expensive food. They look back at that time and say that the price of bread was "too cheap".