You do know how medical studies work, don't you? Control groups, and those that get the treatment? Double blind studies?

If more people die from the treatment, you don't do it. If more control people die, you approve it.

How is that different than what you are making fun of?

The real problem is when we make government regulation the means of enforcing monopolies where none need exist. If a nurse knows how to drain a Cauliflower ear and properly pack it, why go to an ER where the doctor might not have a clue? And if I want to do it myself, why can't I go buy the $3 worth of syringes required to drain it myself? (Luckily I also take B12 injections, so they would sell me what I needed).

And why was I draining my son's Cauliflower ear myself? Because two doctors at two different clinics couldn't do it. And I couldn't REALLY do it legally. Because the law doesn't let you do medical procedures even on yourself. That would deny money to the medical corporate interests. Who cares about actual care?

Actually, Obama's Administration claims he can approve ACTA by Executive Agreement because it does not change any US law.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/84365507/State-Department-Response-to-Wyden-on-ACTA

>We've been doing doing about a million jobs a month better lately than the economy he took over in 2009. As economists know, spending is what pulls an economy out of a recession. You can clearly see when the stimulus worked in the unemployment numbers, but Congress blocked the jobs bill and has forced austerity, which is a drag on the economy.

We are neither spending, nor implementing an austerity approach.

In the 1800's we had a number of recessions (and even a period called "The Great Depression" which we now call "The Long Depression." And yet none of them reduced productivity, increased the income gap, or lasted for years and years like what is done today when we try and "spend" our way out of recessions. So while most economists believe you should spend your way out of a recession, it isn't a universal truth even among economists. What we really do is "Inflate Currancy" out of the recession, which necessarily dilutes the value of our money. Great for banks and Wall Street (since they are the only game in town for trying to beat the inflation rate), but it isn't the best thing for the rest of us.

What we really should do is take our losses on the chin, liquidate the losses, reorganize, and make way for new businesses, new leadership, and provide new opportunities for most of us. Yeah, we will have a tough year. But just like a burnt field, or a forest fire, what is left is fertile ground for new growth. What the Fed does is suppress economic problems until they are absolutely devastating. Maybe all the problems have been suppressed too long. But if forestry has taught us anything, it has taught us you can't prevent forest fires forever. Eventually it will burn.

Pan from behind the President addressing Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Press.

All standing and cheering

It is a sad day.

Consider signing the Petition for Obama to Submit ACTA to the Senate for Ratification.

We can defeat ACTA in the USA in the Senate... If we can get ACTA submitted there.

Right now ACTA is only signed via Executive Agreement.

http://wh.gov/KxA

Just for fun, let's get congress to copyright all of the Supreme Court's Rulings, and give them to Disney.

If they want to research something, then given them Pay For View and they can listen to Donald Duck act out their old rulings.

Maybe that would give them some insight into what they just did to the public.

Apple patent filing date: Jan 2008

First Android ships with said feature implemented: Oct 2008

With Duct Tape.

> You're ignoring some of the violence in the Bible. For instance, look at the book of
> Revelations and how it speaks approvingly of war and torture. Certainly Christians
> can easily take these parts literally as well as the other parts. (And even if the
> torture is a metaphor, the comparison still implies that torture is good.)

It is a small post on Slashdot, not a comprehensive defense of pacifism in Christianity. The only point I was making is that we have in the texts certain standards for governments to follow. *IF* someone wants to claim we are a "Christian Nation" (whatever that means), *THEN* I think they should consider following a few clearly defined principles and limits as defined in their scriptures.

The post wasn't intended to be more than that. One *could* argue pacifism, but in fact we are far beyond that. As I said, we don't even met "Old Testament" standards for resolving conflicts.

Some ethical and moral principles apply regardless. I think as an upper limit only inflicting harm proportional to the harm done to you is a pretty reasonable ethical and moral standard regardless of your ethical/moral/religious views.

Some multiple of the harm to you might be okay as a deterrent, in the mind of some.

Almost anyone would consider someone who can forgive and forgo retribution to be someone following a high moral and ethical standard.

See? I think the post *can* apply, even if you are in no way Christian. That is because I am talking about moral and ethical standards here, not about Christianity. But it remains interesting that Christianity demands more from us, and the fact that we don't meet that standard is more of an argument that we are not a Christian Nation than any historical argument (of which there are plenty).

I did not mean to imply we *are* a Christian Nation, but to point out that many "Christian" Hawks say one thing, and ignore what it means otherwise.

I did a quick re-read of my post, and I think this is at least close to what I wrote.

Just to be clear here, many "hawks" claim to follow "Christian Values".

Let's consider the Old Testament values:

leviticus 24:19-24:21

19 Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
21 One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

Now the idea here is when you are wronged, you *can't* inflect more suffering than you suffered. There is a limit.

Then Jesus came along, and said this was an *upper limit* not a lower limit. You should instead return good for evil. In other words, these Christian Hawks should consider the fact that their ideas of bombing someone because of malware doesn't even past Old Testament standards, much less those of Christianity. How does a crashed computer equate to blowing up a house or office and killing who knows how many innocents in the process?

I am getting very tired of wars and conflicts to line the pockets of various corporate interests. How about we start demanding ethical principles of our leaders rather than buying into their excuses to abuse people abroad, and increasingly, Citizens at home. What is it going to take for people to realize that our government is getting out of hand, and is not behaving in line with our moral and ethical traditions? Seriously, we hear more concern out of our Religious leaders about allowing same sex marriage than we do the killing of 10's and sometimes 100's of women and children!

There *is* something seriously wrong with the morals of this country. When are we going to realize that we are supposed to come to people's aid when they are in need, to hear them when they cry out for relief? That we are not supposed to react by blowing them up?

No, it is tough for many people to believe, but I don't really listen to music at all.

Recording music over the radio or recording TV with a VHS is all legal.

Singing "Happy Birthday" is totally legal, as Time Warner Music's claim to the copyright is totally copyfraud. I do sing Happy Birthday in public, and if that makes me a pirate, then "Prepar 'ta be Boarded, Mate!"

Funny you should mention buying a $40 TV season.

I pay about 60 dollars a month for cable, which provides said TV seasons. They have a DVR feature. Just the other day, that featured failed to record the 2nd episode of House for me. Instead it recorded some lame strange show that I can't recognize.

I can't go to AT&T and get my 2nd episode. Maybe I can watch it on Hulu or something. But why bother? Say I download the thing. And now I am a pirate?

At the end of the year, I have paid 60x12 or 720 dollars into the system. Do I have any of these "seasons" of TV? No. The stupid DVR can hold about 20 or 30 shows. Period. I have watched some T.V. here and there (not much because I work too much), and I got nothing to show for it. Over 20 years this is like $14,000 spent and gone blowing in the wind.

There are good reasons to cut the cable, and buy maybe an outstanding show on DVD every now and then. Watch a bit of video over the Internet. But increasingly there is no way cable justifies its costs.

You are going to claim they have to have that money from that DVD or Blu-Ray to make money? They are gouging today, and if they made their product legitimately priced for people, they could sell it. Piracy only occurs where the business has failed to make their product available for a reasonable price under a reasonable distribution agreement.

It is like the starving folk hunting the "King's Deer." Yeah, some idiots are going to go and take what they shouldn't take regardless. But where everyone as reasonable access to food and hunting and protection, the people (mostly) leave the King's Deer alone. Jack up the price of food, kill them with fees and taxes, and people go and hunt the King's Deer.

Piracy is quite usefully the canary in the coal mind, indicating where businesses are gouging and not providing product at the price that makes sense in the market.