georgerussia

Being a free software developer myself, and using free software for last ten years I have to disagree. I have yet to find a non-linear video editor for Linux which wouldn't crash on some non-trivial stuff. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Being from a different culture background I will likely never understand the way of thinking "we already spending money on X, which I do not want to, so to make me happy we must also spend money on Y". I really wonder whether you balance your own budget the same way? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

We're talking about what happened to buyers, not what happened to sellers. What if he BOUGHT such a book from a legitimate retailer like B&N? Would you also say that some people might have right to just come on in and seize those items from him? If a publisher says like: "ok, I sold those DVDs for $15, but I now want to get them back and sell it for $30", would you be ok for them to seize your legitimately purchased DVDs and leave you a check for $15, so you could go and buy another one for $30? There is over 700 1-star Kindle reviews on Amazon right now. Three weeks ago there was around 15. Apparently it IS a big deal for a lot of people, and they are right about it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I believe Amazon did. Basically it is the same as a corner bookstore learned that they actually sold counterfeit books - so they swept through their customer houses, removed all the sold books from their homes, and left the checks for the amount. I would also suggest it was a not well-thought move by Amazon, because it did not protect them from the copyright infringement suit (I don't think they could use DMCA "safe harbor" because they were actually _selling_ the books - this of course depends on their due diligence). And it now makes Amazon a possible target from a much larger class action suit - sure, the one like where the lawyers will make 1M and each customer will get a $5 discount for a next book - but still they'd do better without it. I believe they overstepped their boundaries. Even if they are protected by DMCA safe harbor clause (which, again, I do not believe in), the clause just says that you need to timely remove the copyright material from your site. It does not say you need to go for everyone who downloaded the copyrighted material, and delete it. I believe this is incorrect classification. First, let's talk about ownership. Even if you have a ebook, video or music file, you only own a container, not the file content. It is no more different than owning a movie DVD - you own the container (the disk itself), and could resell it, destroy it, or use it. But you do not own the content (the movie itself), and you cannot for example sell copies or create derivative works except some cases allowed by the copyright law. The difference is the file format - i.e. whether the file is in "open" format, or in protected (DRM) format. If the file you have is in open format, then your access to the content cannot be restricted. However when the file you have is in protected format, then the fact you own a file means nothing. It is similar to owning a DVD disk but having to call the studio for an access code each time you want to watch a movie. What happens in this case is that people purchased a file encrypted with DRM, so they do not know what is inside and you cannot even say for sure that the content you bought and backed up will be there until you remove it. This is combined with closed-source platform, which is basically a black box with unknown functionality, and it uses signed binaries - which in consumer electronics is a definitive sign the device does something the users would not like it to do. So it was only matter of times when such a power would be abused. This is the reason why I do not own DRM devices, and files with DRM. I only buy ebooks which I could read on a PC, I only buy music in MP3 or OGG, I have never bought ebook on Amazon or music on iTunes. All my music and ebooks are safe. They will be available for me to read and to listen in 100 years. I'd say that a technology is not "dual-use", it is just agnostic to "good and evil". Every DRM I've seen was based on symmetric encryption + asymmetric encryption + crypto hashes + key delivery algorithm. Those technologies are used everywhere, from your hard drive to make sure the data stored in the file system was correct, to BlueRay movies which supposedly should be copy-protected (but of course aren't). Also "good" and "evil" heavily depend on the person. For example, while DRM is definitely evil for the consumer, the RIAA/publishers love it - this is the way they could charge you each time you listen to the song, or copy it into any player you own. This is a good quote, and they found the problem precisely. Digital file formats are not a problem. They are future. The real problem is DRM, and providing the publisher with means to regulate how you use the content you paid for is in reality quite dangerous. Especially when used with intrusive technologies most DRM come with. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In 2006 2,426,000 people died in USA. Substracting 22,000 we see that 2,404,000 people actually HAD insurance - but still died. You know, even having health insurance still does not guarantee survival. How could it happen people in UK still die, as everyone supposed to have health insurance? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Are you talking about dual citizenship (the fact that the country recognizes you not only as its citizen but also citizen of a country B), or you're talking about more than one citizenship (when a country basically says it will only consider you its own citizen, no matter what other citizenships you've got)? I just cannot understand how dual citizenship could be illegal, as it seems to be only possible when two countries signed a treaty making it dual. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Somehow I've got impression that those who'd vote to him would do exactly the same themselves - they just don't want OTHERS to do it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The text says it straight and clear that military and Diplomatic service are not requirements. Instead the time a person spent doing military/diplomatic duties is considered time spent in the USA. You can't be serious with such a statement. Are you just trolling? And they are! Just curious, are you suggesting we should deny them citizenship at all, or give them some second-class citizenship to be ineligible for President office? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And once you do it, you'll have the same problem: what if someone spends six months in pain or even dies because they cannot get MRI or surgery in time, while the center is readily available there right now, but only for "rich"? Seems like you had a crappy insurance policy. This, I'd say, is pretty unusual. Of course. Everyone wants cheap quality healthcare available for everyone. The problem is that no country has ever provided such healthcare. To remove availability issue the system needs to bring in more medical personnel, and build more facilities. This will make the system more costly, and it's not cheap anymore. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, it was quite obvious, and I'm really impressed that you needed an explanation. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Such a testimony would be no different as someone testifying that they cured cancer by drinking urine (yes, some do). They also truly believe they found The Cure, and wonder why people spend time and money on chemo and similar things. And this is where you're wrong. You have no proof beyond the reasonable doubt that there is a mountain, or there is God. All you have is your personal feelings, which again makes you no different from the one who would tell a cancer patient that "the cure" is there, and has helped others, but if you don't want it - it's your choice. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So the question really is how many of those people do it solely because they believe they would go to Hell if they do not. Then we need to take a look what else those people do which they believe they would go to Hell if they do not - bashing homosexuals? murdering people who do not share their beliefs? trying to enforce others to act according to their beliefs? Then we will get a complete picture, and understand whether they are adding value to the world, or not. It is actually not only Christians - what about Mr. Madoff who was pretty famous because of his contributions? If you look only on this side, he would be a very good guy, wouldn't he? And if you look on Scandinavian countries (which are generally non-believing), the number of charitable contributions there is pretty significant, so you do not have to be Christian to donate. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then it seems like vast majority of Christians are just selfish people, who help others not because they "find spirituality" or have some high moral values, but because of selfish desire of saving themselves from hell. I would definitely stick with atheists then. At least they help people not because they're scared to suffer some consequences in afterlife if they do not to. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So you're saying that Christians only help others because they want some benefits for themselves in afterlife? And once you remove those beliefs, then a lot of them would stop helping others? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And now if you involve some logic you'll understand this does not mean anything to anyone but you. Your argument is no different than someone telling the story how aliens kidnapped her and used her sexually, so now everyone should accept as a fact that aliens exist and do those things. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Just to make it clear, no "prophecy" specified in the Bible was fulfilled beyond the reasonable doubt. So basically you're admitting that your 'last days' is meaningless term, which means "this will happen in some time in future, which may be a day, a year, or a billion years". If this is correct, I'd say it is pretty meaningless information, which has no practical purpose at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I told you that in California the "certificate of live birth" is the only thing the people who born here got. And this is perfectly enough to get a passport. What kind of birth certificate do you possess? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You never answered all my questions. Usually you only answer one of them, and you choose the one which is the least important. Of course, but you still have a lot of such examples when someone claims they cannot afford insurance, but at the same time they spend money on things like cell phone, cable TV, Internet, DVD rental, beer and so on. You said you cannot afford insurance, so if you are having any of those things, you are in the camp who _choses_ not to afford it. And it doesn't matter whether you consider something optional or not, this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about who is going to PAY for things you do not consider optional. And as you're avoiding answers it looks more and more like you want to make a list of things which are not considered optional, and basically to force others to provide those things to you. Of course you're ok with paying "your share", but this is because you understand that your share won't cover even your costs as it doesn't now. That's a pretty typical example nowadays - almost everyone who claims that the "system" should provide more means that they want to get things by paying less than they cost. And the difference should be paid by "rich" - they usually call it "fair share" or similar crap. Good enough. If someone preferred to have a shiny $800 cell phone instead of getting health insurance, and ate the consequences, it might be a good example for others who are still choosing between a cell phone and insurance. Sound cruel and cold-hearted? Welcome to the real world. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Let me get it clear, as this phrase could be interpreted in two ways. 1. You are saying that you can afford to pay in taxes at least the amount necessary to buy your own healthcare, or even more. If this is the case, then why did you say before that you cannot afford it? If you can afford it, why do you need the government to buy it for you? 2. You are saying that you can afford to pay in taxes some amount which is NOT enough to cover even your own healthcare. You can call it "my share", "fair share" or whatever - it doesn't matter. If this is the case, then what you're saying is that you want others to pay for your healthcare, while you are not going to pay even your own share. So could you please clear it up? You know, as soon as someone starts talking about morals, they put their own credibility at stake. So tell me, are you volunteering in cancer treatment centers, or this is yet another instance of "someone else should pay for that but not me"? Same is getting food - even if you're not hungry right now, it's only matter of times when you need food again. So planning your spending to be able to buy food is not optional decision either. So are a lot of other things, including healthcare. A responsible person hopes for the best but is prepared for the worst, and an irresponsible person just hopes for the best. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Please make it straight - you can not think of a better thing to tax OTHERS for then saving a fellow citizens (like yours) life. You said you cannot afford it - and this means that you are not going to pay for healthcare for your and someone else. You want someone else to pay for healthcare for him AND for you. And I see it as a waste to pay for someone's healthcare if the person decided to have other spending priorities - like paying for their cell phone, cable TV, a computer or Internet connection instead. Screw them. And I can't understand why a person with any common sense would suggest that since we're already paying for some other shit they're not comfortable with, we should be ok to pay for even more shit instead of stopping paying for that shit. I don't know what you do for living, but I suggest you should not have any profit as well - i.e. you should work for food and housing (and healthcare). I'm ok with you working without profit. Are you? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Then why are you calling those "last days" if you do not really know? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That is pretty typical opinion if your experience with socialized medicine was limited to simple things like common cold or broken ankle. Those things are cheap even in USA. It is when you need an expensive procedure like cancer treatment or brain surgery when then it would be much easier to see what is wrong with socialized medicine. Even nowadays in Moscow if you go to a free hospital, you need to bring your own syringes. Sure, nobody will put you into waiting list for a broken ankle. MRI might be different. Regarding cheap prescriptions, the current situation is that USA is doing R&D of approximately 80% of all the world drugs. Other countries participation is very limited, and mostly clinical testing. So the rest of the world is basically getting a kind of "free ride" paid by our insurance premiums. And yeah, while generic prescriptions are dirty cheap in most of Europe, the brand name drugs are quite expensive - and in some countries drugs are not covered by socialized healthcare at all. But the difference in taxes helps you to buy insurance, and you end up having even more money. So when you have insurance the generic prescriptions are cheap, and waiting times are MUCH faster - my friend recently discovered a tumor in his brain, went through several MRIs and had a brain surgery in like four days - and it only cost him around $500 in total premium as he has a very good insurance. Of course if having a cable and cell phone is more important than having health insurance, life sucks. And it should. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is cruel. There are better alternatives - the ones who are unable to take care of themselves should have a personal government czar to be appointed, and follow his direction. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In my opinion the tort reform alone would not do anything good right now. In current commercial environment the prices will not go down - the price is set according to the people ability to pay, which will not change because of the tort reform. It might slow down the healthcare cost increase, but not significant either. However when/if the government-paid healthcare is introduced, the tort reform seems to be mandatory. In fact I do not know any country in the world with "free" healthcare where a person could get any money from malpractice lawsuit when the amount would really justify the lawsuit, so if such a change is made, the tort reform is just following. There are more things to consider. I do not know about other countries but at least in Russia/ex-USSR DAs know that medicine is not bullet-proof and there is virtually no guarantee, so to lose the license the doctor should do something really malicious in nature, like doing brain surgery while being drunk. If the doctor prescribes a valid pill and the patient gets disabled or dies after taking it, usually DAs don't even take those cases. This, of course, has its consequences - occasionally doctors get murdered because the people basically have no other recourse, so they believe they "deliver justice" this way. Another one is that every life insurance or disability policy I've seen there either had exclusions for medical mistakes, or cost zillions if they do not. So the tort reform is not something simple which could be done overnight. I'd start with requiring govt-sponsored healthcare recipients to sign a release of liability type waivers. Wanna sue a doctor if something goes wrong? Pay more, but do it yourself. Don't force other taxpayers (who're paying for your healthcare) to pay more for your right to sue. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Agree. That's why those who didn't go through /free/ government-based school, could keep private practice and charge as much as they want. Those who went through the government school, should work for the government healthcare for N years (with lower salary, of course). Of course, the law should exclude monetary compensation in malpractice suits completely. If the doctor is guilty of malpractice - let DA bring the suit, and the doctor will lose the license (or even go to jail). Otherwise we all pay those monetary awards to "victims", which makes no sense. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *