Well, I just did the upgrade from a fully installed, authenticated, activated and working Windows 8.1 and it is still telling me that it can't activate. Worse, when you choose "Error Details" the box is completely empty! Microsoft really fucked up releasing it with this bug especially since a Google search shows this very problem early on. Oh well, back to the drawing board and downgrade it again.
The problem you miss is that of immunocompromised or otherwise medically exempted individuals - namely, people who don't have a choice whether they get vaccinated or not.
Then you just shot down your whole argument that everyone be immunized. Again, if you fear your kid getting a disease then keep your kid away from others or immunize them. You can control that where you can't control the actions (or inaction) of others.
And to answer the AC below about babies, they inherit the mother's antibodies through the placenta and later through the mother's breast milk. Want to protect your baby, then have the mother immunized.
I'm not a big fan of government coercion as the solution to everything, but vaccinations are a public health issue where you are affecting more than yourself whenever you sneeze. That means your refusal to vaccinate your child or yourself might condemn people to death who currently have no choice to avoid interacting with you, and no idea if you're someone they should stay away from.
The problem with this statement is it makes one big assumption... Namely that everyone is NOT vaccinated. In short, if coming close to someone not vaccinated worries you then get yourself vaccinated. Or don't you trust the vaccine to protect you if exposed?
I don't proclaim that vaccines are dangerous but as with any drug I believe there can be side effects. Having said that, I am totally vaccinated having been in the military as well as in Emergency Management. There are simply some professions where it is a must.
You people completely missed the first line of what I said. Here, let me help you:
Although I believe kids should be exposed to STEM courses, forcing them into STEM fields where there is no interest is a recipe for disaster.
So being exposed to math, biology, chemistry and even computer science is completely different from being forced into a field which this law is attempting to do. Having CS year after year for 12 years as a core class is trying to force kids into the CS field. Biology, chemistry, physics and the like are NOT core classes like mathematics reading and writing.
Although I believe kids should be exposed to STEM courses, forcing them into STEM fields where there is no interest is a recipe for disaster. Better to let kids dictate where their interest lies.
Also, this is more of the corporate drive to lower wages in STEM fields no different than them wanting more H1B slave labor. More people in a field than there are available jobs means the corporation can dictate wages and get concessions on benefits that they would not otherwise be able to command.
OK... I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and ask you a couple questions...
Assume they do just as you say. What do you do with those that violate even that copyright term? You see, today things are copied usually the day they are released or in most cases even before they are released. Just how do you stop that? If you really intend to be fair, until you can answer those you are just blowing smoke.
So I see you heard of the dibs protocol and the no take backs accord as well. (Gotten from Red Vs. Blue)...
Don't confuse idealism with tax breaks.... Remove the tax breaks and see how the "donations" decline.
You evidently didn't read the last line in TFS. FOIAs aren't free to file. They cost money to prepare and turn over. Add to that the restrictions on time to produce (10 days in my state. No idea what the federal time limit is) as well as the maze that is the legal exemptions on a FOIA request and it gets quite expensive. What news agency is willing to be the first to fork over the money just to have the means to recoup the funds pulled out from under them? I think this idea is brilliant if you want to curb the FOIA requests you receive.
I never said nobody should buy one... I said I wouldn't buy one for the expense and limited distance between charges.
You have a charging station built into walls of your house already. In fact, there just might be electrical receptacles all over the USA!
So disregarding the fact that they require special connections let's review why you want me to use electric cars...
1. Emissions. This is a fallacy since you are transferring the emissions to the power station. There will be very little savings if you consider this.
2. Expense. This is offset by the cost of electricity. Want to see the electric bill skyrocket? Plug in your car every trip to the store and watch it rise. Speaking of that, charging stations outside of the house will also charge for the electricity used based on their billing which will also include a bit of profit making it cheaper to charge at home.
3. Maintenance. I don't see any savings here since the batteries in the electric cars are very expensive and can't be changed by the user. Most of the electric cars also have very complex circuitry making them very mechanic exclusive.
Talk to me when that price point is less than $15,000 and there are charging stations in rural WV.
Unless you write software....
And even then it is not free. Lots of hoops to jump through. Far more than the corporate welfare system we have.
Meanwhile Mr. AC I am sure you are one of the first to scream when the government doesn't provide the services you think they should provide. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch!