I agree. We should end the wars, tax wall street and the banks for screwing us into a recession, and the uber-rich for making a fortune during that time. Let's get our country back on track! Or just eliminate Medicare and Social Security. I mean, those are equal things, right?

There were no Borders located in Lansing, with the closest store to you being Flint or Brighton. Still, this is a sad day for local business here in Michigan, as it means more job losses in our perpetually struggling state.

This is all fine and dandy, except for all the parts that aren't fine and dandy. The district would need to provide or validate a PC and/or internet access for every student/household in the district (multiple connections and PCs for anyone with more than 1 child in school, of course,) and then somehow ensure that those students have heat, electricity, running water and parental supervision. If they were truly serious about making up time for "snow days" they'd extend the school year appropriately or eliminate summer vacations altogether.

The dog ate it.

I nearly spit my drink out on my monitor after reading this!

While this data breach is certainly a major setback, I think "every year" is a bit of a stretch.

Sony isn't stupid. They've already released GoW Collector's pack as an official re-release, and I wouldn't be surprised if you saw re-tooled PS2 classics on the PSN in the next couple years. Valid point, though.

I hope you didn't either. The thing cost $600! Now you can get one for under $300.

USB is much more prevalent than any of these formats, unless you're talking the realm of cell phones and cameras. Sure, the feature would have been nice to keep, but is this really a deal-breaker?

So buy a USB splitter if for some reason you need 6 peripherals plugged into your PS3 Slim at once.

Who the &#*@ uses SACD?

Valid point #2. Still a niche audience, and a decision that doesn't affect most PS3 owners. (Not that it makes the decision right.)

And Netflix, Media Server streaming, basic chat and messaging, photos, digital audio support (MP3, etc.), DLC, PS1 games, internet browsing, and free online play. (Not to feed the fanboy within or anything. =D)

Apparently you've never played any MMO, the Sims, or downloaded any additional DLC on your PC? While you may lament the age of DLC and premium online subscription fees, but until an open-source alternative arises the pricing models will change until they milk the consumers for all they're worth. Welcome to capitalism. The free service, allegedly, is not going away. Personally, I'd wait and see what they are going to offer at E3.

Hey AC, you wouldn't happen to be one of the small minority of users who are still miffed about the removal of the other OS/backwards PS2 compatibility, would you? :) Don't get me wrong, what Sony did with that is certainly devious and a bad business decision. But let's not extrapolate this to mean that it's the status quo for all services Sony offers, including an as of yet unannounced official service that has rumored features.

The article links to the PS3 forums, where this thread lists 673 posts: http://boardsus.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-3-Updates/Users-with-3-21-technical-problems/td-p/45470549

Is this the "TV show" that has been in the pipelines forever? A @#!*#ing cartoon?!

There's no filibuster with reconciliation, and amendments and debate are limited by a strict timeline. The bill and it's reconciliation amendments will be signed into law within a week. Those that oppose health care legislation typically come from Republican stronghold districts, which should be no surprise. I'm not sure it's the Democrat's constituency that is going to be in an unproar come November. However, as much "damage" as health care reform may pose to incubment Democrats, Republicans shot themselves in the foot by using the filibuster an unprecedented number of times, even on legislation that THEY introduced. Democrats would be foolish not to use this to their advantage.

We can argue constitutional law, but most likely the decisions for the basis for an individual mandate will fall back to the Commerce Clause and it's associated precedents regulating interstate commerce that constitutes a "substantial effect." (Gonzales v Raich, U v. Lopez, et. al.)

From your link: "The committee will review and evaluate medical literature, analyze technology assessments, and examine data and information on the effectiveness and appropriateness of medical devices and procedures. Based on the medical evidence reviewed, the committee will advise and make recommendations on Medicare decisions, but HCFA makes final Medicare coverage decisions. Each of the six advisory panels is organized to roughly parallel Medicare benefit categories, enabling HCFA to obtain the most pertinent technical advice. The panels will be asked to evaluate scientific evidence to assist HCFA in making coverage decisions." Nothing here to suggest that a US Government panel will be making individual case decisions. They are set up to review policy and provide technical advice regarding medical benefits under Medicare, not organ donor decisions. Your example, at the very least, is exaggerated. I posit this to you: Is it really worse that a government panel make these types of decisions (with congressional oversight, mind you) than some profit-hungry CEO in a board room!? Profits should not dictate health care.

I refer you to this post. It's a bit snide, but I think it points out some of the flaws in your argument: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1588498&cid=31536338

By your own argument, wouldn't the status quo be even more ill advised? It's not about trust, it's about action. Dems and Repubs alike have maligned social security and medicare over the decades into the monster it is today. It requires direct intervention. But this bill is about providing Health Care to Americans, not revamping either of those social systems. It addresses specific concerns within Medicare as it applies to certain benefits (i.e. the Donut Hole, Medicare commissions, etc.) It also mandates that steps be taken to reduce costs in Medicare, and provides the means to do so if the provisions do not work out as planned. If, as you say, the estimates are not correct, the legislation provides for a committee whose sole responsibility is to enforce and enact cost saving measures to meet it's goals of spending reduction. If Medicare spending is what is out of control, then why is this such a bad idea? (Read some of their immediate proposals yourself: http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Hackbarth%20Statement%20SFC%20Roundtable%204%2021%20FINAL%20with%20header%20and%20footer.pdf. Not nearly as insidious as you suggest.)

You're missing my point. What is needed is reform. While the proposed bill don't go as far as I would like, it provides for much needed change to the health insurance industry and an opportunity for individuals in dire need of health care. I trust private industry as much to "do the right thing" as I do our own government. In the end, they are both run by bureaucrats with their own self-interests that come into play. We're only human, after all. If placing one's trust wholeheartedly in governmental legislation is a naïve concept, then the same is true for placing that same trust in private sector. Each serves it purpose. Change is needed. The private sector is not willing to change. That's the bottom line for me. I am curious, is there anything in the bill you do like?

Which is why you can receive a subsidy to purchase insurance if you can not afford it or "opt out" by paying a fine. Moving on...

Unless you are simultaneously reducing costs for Medicare by similar amounts or funding the proposals in other ways (i.e. the "Cadillac" plan tax and Medicare tax increase.) Please read the CBO report, which is party-neutral and sanctioned by both parties to do its analysis.

*(not professional governmental accountants or the CBO) Your point? Long distance forecasts are entirely less than accurate. Which is why they call them "official estimates." There are also provisions within the bill to take steps to meet the necessary reductions should the plan not work as intended. Next?

Who have a single payer, government run system entirely unlike what is proposed in the bill?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027 The "estimates" you refer to were not "conducted, commissioned or published" by the NEJM.

Really? Your example truly shows the lack of understanding and confusion perpetrated about this bill. Please cite to me the section within either bill that states a government panel will hear cases on liver transplants and decide their validity, expediency, etc.

Comprehensive Medicare reform is not the core of this bill. However, cost-saving measures that will affect Medicare are included in its provisions. Will it solve the Medicare crisis? No. Will it provide health insurance to the uninsured? Yes.

...Unless the insurance were really good at taking federal, state and local laws and finding loopholes to every piece of legislation. Then you might need 2300 pages.