justinb138

The FBI and DHS are the agencies responsible for investigating suspected terrorism - not the TSA. At an airport the TSA is there to make sure that nothing that could cause harm to the passengers gets on the plane. I fail to see how a box with some cash in it is going to harm anyone.

One of the sad facts of the situation is that even if Bush hadn't gone through with the TARP/bailouts, the current administration would be blaming him for his inaction rather than his action like they currently are. It seems in politics, doing something, even if it's worse than doing nothing, still looks better than doing nothing at all.

Just because he didn't start the fire doesn't mean it's OK to continue pouring gasoline on it.

There's a good chance you'd see something if it was there - there'd be a few errors usually highlighted with some type of warning icon. Since there's not anything in the event log I'd assume that it's a hardware-related issue of some sort. Most machines will shut themselves down if something overheats to prevent frying itself. Most likely culprit is the processor overheating. Try moving some cool air through the machine (using a fan or AC - dry ice might be a bit much) and running something process-intensive like SuperPi on the 32M setting. You should see the core temps rapidly rise, and they should level out at a certain point. If they keep rising up until the point that it shuts off you have either a bad CPU fan or the heatsink has come loose.

Yup - looks like people decided that they wanted a ruler instead of a leader after all. Edit: Please don't think that I'm implying that McCain would have been the latter as opposed to Obama. I'm a fan of Paul.

Ok. Has it shut off recently? Next time it shuts off check the event log and see if there's any messages there. You can get to the Logs by right-clicking My Computer > Manage, then looking under the Events section. Any OS errors should be listed under this section. If it happens again, try to post the event log details on here.

That's quite hot for a Core 2. Are you able to feel any air coming out of the cooling ports next to the processor?

What processor are you running? That seems to be quite high.

On most motherboards it's the [del] key. You might be able to see the motherboard temps from the bios, but not all of them support that. The program you're going to want to find is CoreTemp. http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/

We'll miss you.

Think there's any chance Fox can counter this broadcast with discussion between Ron & Rand Paul and Peter Schiff?

Now that I think about it, I see no reason why they wouldn't just come out and say it if they did force them to, as this administration doesn't seem to have any desire to hide the fact that they're trying to get a hand in everyone's business.

I've felt more often than not that I've received more tests than I wanted or needed. In the 8 or so times I've been in the ER for kidney-stone related pain, nearly every doc has wanted to do CTs, etc... despite the fact I was under the care of a urologist who was already doing all of those tests. Unfortunately, when you're in extreme pain and the doc says they won't give you any pain meds until they do the tests, there isn't a compelling reason to argue with them.

The same reason I wouldn't expect one of my coworkers to get fired if he was cheating on his wife - his personal life is no one's business but his own. As long as he's doing his job nothing else should concern me. Personally, I don't care what any congressman does on his or her time, provided it doesn't affect their job. The fact that these power-hungry assholes in Washington care more about who is sleeping with who than the issues pertinent to their own job (like the Constitution), just sickens me.

If it wasn't a request how would you tell the difference?

So it'd cost $63,500/person for health coverage for 16 million people? I'm pretty sure private insurance is a little cheaper than that...

***Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production. This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.” Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy. Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism Libertarian Socialism? That's a contradiction if I've ever heard one. Also has nothing to do with true libertarianism, but I guess that little detail isn't too important to you.

Nothing's stopping them from buying wal-mart stock, and last I heard they do have some sort of profit sharing program for employees.

Except the fundamental flaw is that the majority of people from both sides may disagree about details, but they both think they government is the solution. They're unable to see any possible solution that doesn't somehow serve themselves. They are the problem.

If this was the case, do you think people would take more responsibility about their own safety? Would people be calling 911 if someone messed up their cheeseburger? I could see the cost of something like this being paid for by a homeowners insurance policy or something similar. Again, this is something that'd probably end up being covered in an insurance policy. What happens if you need an ambulance in the current system? There already are toll roads, and they work just fine. People already pay a federal tax of $.18/gal and a state tax averaging $.32/gal, so one could argue that this is already happening. And because of that they have no vested interest in controlling their costs or providing a high level or value or service. If they perform poorly or piss people off, people don't have the option to not pay them - they're not going anywhere. No, we need to return to the idea that one's life is their own responsibility. The system is broken, and the government has done nothing but make it worse.

I'm sure I could waste 5 minutes of my life trying to come up with some witty response, but honestly I'm tired, and you're not worth the effort. Your writings on here speak more to your character than anything I'd be able to come up with anyway.

I'm done with trying to have a rational discussion if you're going to try to put words in my mouth. I never said I did trust them, I just said I didn't trust the government either. I never said they don't need regulation, I just questioned who was doing the regulating. Seriously, grow up. I never said it was wasted, frivolous, or crap. And less fortunate? I'm not able to make a living because I'm forunate, I make a living because I work for it. And free markets are the way to go. Everyone that invested in Enron, Madoff, did so by their own choice. These companies were a problem; the market corrected the problem and they're no longer in business. I've tried to have a rational discussion about this with you, but you seem to be resorting to putting words in my mouth and out right insults at some point, instead of giving a rational response. Why is that?

AADs? Eliminate them? No. Take money from everyone that has one to so that those that don't can get one? Absolutely not. So you're saying it's OK to use force to take my money, and you're the one who is civilized? Are you implying that there is something wrong with providing for one's self? I'm an 'I earned mine Jack'. And if someone asks me for help, there's a good chance they'll get it. If someone comes and demands it by force, they're not getting a damn thing. You do have the right to health care in this country - but you have to work for it. Just because it's not given to you doesn't mean you don't have the right to get it.

"Phantom Billing" - Billing for tests not performed. Performing inappropriate or unnecessary procedures. Charging for equipment/supplies never ordered. Billing Medicare/Medicaid for new equipment but providing the patient used equipment. Billing Medicare/Medicaid for expensive equipment but providing the patient cheap equipment. A drug or equipment supplier completing a Certificate of Medical Necessity (CMN) instead of the physician. "Reflex testing" - Automatically running a test whenever the results of some other test fall within a certain range, even though the reflex test was not requested by a physician. "Defective Testing" - When a test or part of a test was not performed because of technical trouble (ie: insufficient or destroyed sample, machine malfunction) but is billed for anyway. "Code Jamming" - Laboratories inserting or "jamming" fake diagnosis codes to get Medicare/Medicaid coverage. Offering free services or supplies in exchange for your Medicare or Medicaid number. "Unbundling" - Using two or more Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") billing codes instead of one inclusive code for a defined panel where rules and regulations require "bundling" of such claims. Submitting multiple bills, in order to obtain a higher reimbursement for tests and services that were performed within a specified time period and which should have been submitted as a single bill. "Double Billing" — charging more than once for the same service, for example by billing using an individual code and again as part of an automated or bundled set of tests. "Up Coding" - Inflating bills by using diagnosis billing codes that indicate the patient experienced medical complications and/or needed more expensive treatments. (eg., billing for complex services when only simple services were performed, billing for brand-named drugs when generic drugs were provided, listing treatment as having been for a more complicated diagnosis than was actually the case.) "Phantom Employees" - Expensing employees or hours worked that do not exist. "Improper Cost Reports" — Submitting false cost reports seeking higher Medicare reimbursements than permitted by actual facts. Providing substandard nursing home care and seeking Medicare reimbursement. Routinely waiving patient co-payments. ------------------------------------------------ Current estimates that medicare fraud alone costs the US $60 billion annually. Do you think spending more money on a program like this will decrease fraud?

Ask yourself this. Did these people get involved with Madoff, Enron, etc.. because they assumed that if they were up to no good that the government would have done something about it? And if these same government regulators didn't exist, how many people would have chosen to actually research these investments before spending their money? Does the government regulation prevent corporate fraud or give people a false sense of security that leads to them becoming a victim of it? If they screw up and miss something like Madoff or Enron, they always say they need more regulation, but does more regulation actually help, or does it just increase the cost of business while giving people an even greater false sense of security?