Just use wifi or satellite... The firewall only blocks wired connections which hardly anyone uses.

"I don't remember anyone from the RIAA ever claiming that "A copy of anything is just as valuable as the original", obviously that would be stupid."

And that's the point, the RIAA DOES claim that the copy is a lost sale... ie exactly the same as the original CD that they didn't sell, and hence want you to now pay for. This is the very argument that this stunt is playing against.

You are correct that the copied bill does not have monetary value, and hence is not as valuable as the original. However, then why can't the same argument be made supporting MP3s? They AREN'T the same as the original, yet you can get sued for having them. Now, you might say that this is because it's "close enough" to the original. Great... so what about reprints of art? Are they sold at the same value of the original, because they are "close enough" to the original? Do they not provide the same "entertainment value" as the original?

Actually, your referenced quote is incorrect as well. Android continues to evolve without OS updates, while iOS apparently cannot. For example, you can't get Siri or iCloud on an older iOS, but Android has these features, and continues to update them along the way, without needing an OS update. I'm still running my OG Droid today, and I have all the "new" features in hand already (unless they are hardware dependent, of course). Can't do that on iPhone, only because Apple apparently doesn't want you to. In other words, Android devices don't stay at the same level of functionality, because their capability isn't as tightly tied to the OS version.

I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. But, to comment on your statement above, social charity is fine, if it were dependable. It is not. Therefore, a mechanism needs to be in place to financially support these operations.

As for the paying for services, and then not expecting to have certain "good" behaviors, that's just a good way to throw away money. Even a few "bad apples" who continue to do dumb/unhealthy things would put a strain on the system, causing it to require more money to support these people... to pay for the care they need because they don't care for themselves. For example, it would be like forcing a car maker to honor a warranty, even if the owner never bothered to perform basic maintenance or repairs... or, more relevant to this story, if the owner intentionally drove it in a manner that damaged it (racing, driving into walls, etc). In your parlance, the owner should be allowed to do this, because you don't want to force them to behave in a certain way... and yet the mfg should cover the damage. That would not be considered fair to the manufacturer, so why would it be considered fair in healthcare?

Try reading the statement I made. The point is, it IS my problem because when you get hurt, if you don't have insurance, we have to pay for it. I am fine with your decisions, if they don't affect me... your smoking and non-seatbelt wearing DOES affect me because I can't trust that you will pay your healtcare bills. So, if you want to sign that you will NEVER leave a healthcare bill unpaid, then I'm fine with you doing whatever you want - smoking, not wearing a seatbelt, etc. Of course, that doesn't help your police-case at all... this is a systemic issue that needs to choose a direction: Care for the people and keep them from doing stupid things, or let them suffer for their mistakes. I prefer the latter... but how do you "make" someone pay if they can't? And who pays for the pursuit of payment, when most of this can be "written off" by bankruptcy and such? You can't have it both ways... though the government continues to try.

Bottom line, hold everyone accountable for their own actions, and don't support anyone... OR if we must support them and protect our citizens, then we must prevent them from being idiots.

It's all a game of probability. If wearing a seatbelts saves you 95% of the time, and hurts you 5%... would you still rather take the 5% side of the equation, rather than the 95% side? It would be like saying that you don't want to wear a condom, since it's not effective 1% of the time. Or that you'd rather play "Russian Roulette" with 5 out of 6 bullets, because with 1 out of 6 bullets still means you may die 1/6 of the time. It's a ridiculous statement to make, statistically speaking... particularly for the small inconvenience seatbelts cause, in general.

I don't believe to be an unreasonable conflation. Yes, you're correct that taxpayers cover all uninsured insurance payments, but car accidents constitute a larger percentage of events versus your example of suicides. Also, car accidents are not always the fault of the driver (hence the term "accident")... so they are not only in the victim's control... hence we need to be defensive about it. It's like wearing helmets and pads in a football game... players don't only hurt themselves, but carry a higher threat of being hurt by others... hence the pads and such. If they stopped wearing such equipment, would you be quick to say the taxpayers should cover their injuries too?

On your second point, yes, I agree that suicides shouldn't be covered by taxpayers either. The problem is, you can't know it was a suicide until AFTER the emergency has passed... so you simply can't segregate the incoming patients to the ER. But since they aren't as frequent/common as car accidents, I think it's something a civilized society should just accept and deal with. Hell, that's all the more reason to support suicide prevention and such, but that's a totally different point.

As for the healthcare topic, I agree with you there - I, too, would support this system as you would. But I still think there are limits to what's considered acceptable. In your example of the mortgage payment, would you be ok with paying the mortgage, and then having the resident damage the place to the point of worthlessness? Does that seem fair to you? Unless you want to pay the mortgage with no expectation of any return value of any kind... in which case you're just talking about "social charity" essentially... which is admirable, but not really relevant to the topics here.

You're referencing a movie to represent reality? Yeesh. I think it would be best to leave the science to others, as you clearly have no bearing on facts and reality. I'm not saying there is NEVER a situation where a seatbelt is more dangerous, but statistically, these are rare... and hence should not be considered for a general rule. For example, some people die just walking down their driveway and slipping on ice... should we ban walking because of this minority, or force everyone to wear helmets all the time? Statistically, this is the risk we all take... and so wearing a seatbelt is a risk you should take, as it's far more likely to save you than kill you. As for allowing people to decide for themselves, I'm all for it... as long as we-the-people don't have to pay for your hospital visit because you didn't wear the seatbelt.

Agreed on all counts. But to carry the "doesn't hurt anyone" thought further: I'd be happy if a person who didn't wear their seatbelt was denied coverage by their insurances. If that were to happen, then we are one step closer to really meeting the "doesn't hurt anyone" theory. Granted, the accident caused by the person flailing about is still present, but I might be willing to let that one go in favor of the above.

Your statement makes it sounds like they are crazy dangerous or something. I have used plenty of medium-sized rare earth magnets (for our industrial application, bending accelerated ion beams). While they can snap together dangerously, the smaller versions are hardly dangerous in any way. Fact is any magnets can stick together in the body and cause this kind of damage. Instead of blaming the magnets, why not stop the kids from eating things like this? As kids, my brother and I never ate anything small, and we played with Legos (not Duplo) and screws and bolts all the time. I guess I don't understand the need to put things in my mouth like that... but if your kid needs to do that, then as a parent, you need to notice is and prevent it... and not just for magnets.

Agreed. I still use Office 2000 because it's less bloated, and doesn't have that MS activation nonsense. The only feature I "miss" is the compress pictures feature in the newer versions. I have Office 2007 at work, and it's really not much different or better, other than it "looks prettier"... which is really not a big deal. The real reason I continue to use MSOffice in any form is because everyone else uses it, and when I have to send it along, it's just more compatible. In other words, the problem is that import/export between doc/docx is not great... and MS's implementation of standard formats that LibreOffice supports is just crap. I will admit that for Graphing (Excel) LibreOffice really doesn't do as well. However, LO can handle large files (O2k can't)... so it's still rather usable for the most part, and good enough for my usage (speaking as an engineer, so I use a LOT of Excel).

A reasonable point about 18-wheelers, though they (at least) have a reason for accelerating slowly. A normal vehicle has no excuse... and by extension, a vehicle in disrepair is unsafe and probably shouldn't be there either. I'm not blaming you, and again, I appreciate that you floored it to at least try... unlike most people with even functioning cars (and V8 badges, etc). I just question the basic reasoning... as an example, I doubt the German autobahn would allow this... and they have half the accident rate of the US interstates (for numerous reasons, none of which have to do with driving slower).

Another AC... wuss. And on top of that you're a danger to people around you, because you can't stand it when real facts contradict your incorrect beliefs. Grow up and learn to have an intelligent discussion, rather than "smashing" people for proving you wrong like a child.

Use the example of Germany - fact is, they have about half the accident rates of the US Interstates. They practice and ENFORCE driving fundamentals (turn signals, staying the the right lane (notice I said RIGHT, not middle, not near-right... the RIGHT lane), reaching the speed of traffic BEFORE merging, slowing down OFF the highway travel lanes before exiting, etc). All of these lead to lower accident rates even with VERY high speeds of travel and even large disparities in speed.

The facts are clear. Speed is not the problem. Lack of fundamental skills (and paying attention) are the key to problems here... as well as people who think they own the road because they are "doing the speed limit" or that driving slower is safer. I'll just leave it at that, since it's clear you have no interest in using facts, and just want to get upset because you can't accept you're wrong.

Posting AC... too scared to own up to your own sorry attitude?

Yes, the road is to share. If you are going to slow YOU are the problem. Is that so hard to understand? Jamming the brakes and slowing down is MORE DANGEROUS than the tailgater behind you. If you are such a safe driver, why not get the F out of the way? That's the SAFEST thing you can do, idiot.

And, yes, I did consider safe braking distance. Unless you hit a brick wall or stop in 0-feet, I don't need to give you more than a second or so worth of additional stopping distance, since I am actually paying attention to your moronic driving. How am I now the "asshole" when you're the one driving too slow for traffic, jamming the brakes, and blocking passing? That's at least 3 laws broken right there, versus the speeder's one (speeding) which is actually not true, since the speed limit on most highways is illegally posted. Who's being the unsafe asshole now?

No argument there - it's not the person "in the middle" that's at fault. Unfortunately, left-lane hogs don't normally get out of the left lane UNLESS they are being tailgated. Fact is, people should be looking behind them, and if ANY vehicle breaks the 3-second "rule" of spacing, they should move over.... yet they don't. I'm not saying that this is a valid reason for the person behind to tailgate, but it's an unfortunate result of the ignorant driver in the front of the pack. I'm sure the tailgaters would prefer a different way to resolve the situation... so what's the suggested alternative?