I think the argument for public privacy with cop cams is pretty silly. We're talking about a camera on each officer not a camera on every light pole. How many officers are on duty not sitting in their car at any one time? If I remember correctly in my home town of 30,000 there are typically 6 officers on duty at a time (may be off, I'm trying to remember old info). So an extra half dozen to a dozen cameras is suddenly a privacy concern? This just does not hold water to me...
But then the more I think about it, the reason I said it looks like a Star Wars movie was because it has X-Wings, TIE fighters, Stormtroopers, and the Millennium Falcon. You know, the stuff they had in Episodes 4-6.
Except, wasn't the whole point of these movies that they're long after Star Wars Episodes 4-6? Like, enough to justify the age of the original actors? So why do we still have the Millennium Falcon being chased by TIE Fighters? How is it that things look the same if so much time has passed?
So much time? Like... 40 years?
From what I understand the explanation for the major change from I-III to IV tech-wise was you went from a Universe that's been relatively peaceful for some amount of time and is largely non-militaristic. This would naturally lead to stagnant tech advancement and possibly to governments spending money on "cool" looking ships and things instead of purely functional equipment. Then you go to Episode VI and we're in a Universe that has been at war for a couple decades. It makes sense for major changes in military tech as much of the random equipment each individual World possessed was probably destroyed in fighting and equipment had to be streamlined for cost and speed of manufacturing (no more pretty random ships). It would make sense then that in the following decades of the same war with the economy still in the toilet that any upgrades would just be applied to the same basic shell and likely not result in a completely new ship (like retro fitting newer radar or missiles onto old battleships and fighter jets).
Also... Obi Wan clearly new what an R2 unit was... R2 units clearly existed in Episodes I-III so I have no idea why that is even being discussed. That being said, I believe it was Episode IV before Luke goes to blow up the first Death Star when someone mentions to him that they could find him a newer R2 unit, which implies that while there were upgrades and advancements made to those droids, they were not necessary to function with Rebel ships and the 2 decade old R2-D2 was perfectly capable of being used.
I'd just like to throw out my 2 cents here. Assuming that the limiting factor is qualified health care workers. How else do you distribute those resources? Do you assign them by most critical need (which could lead to huge numbers of deaths as people don't get to see a doc until it's too late)? Do you assign them randomly (is it really going to be random for everyone? are we going to not assign a doc to the president?)?
I think it makes the most sense to leave it as a free market... yes poor people in rural areas get screwed and rich people in highly populated areas get a big benefit, but I don't see a better way to re-distribute those resources.
Qualified healthcare workers aren't really the limiting factor. Desire for those healthcare workers to work in underserved areas is (Edit: I should note and adjusting scope of care for other qualified healthcare workers). My wife could make six times my current salary her first year out of residency and a hospitalist (an internal medicine doctor working for a hospital)... if we moved to Nebraska. It's a serious discussion, because we'd be making enough to pay off her student loans in two years AND buy a house out there, where otherwise we're looking at 20 years of loan repayments and debt forgiveness at the end of those 20 years.
So... is your hypothesis that there are a bunch of unemployed Doctors in urban areas? If you move resources out to rural areas they have to come from somewhere. Assuming that those resources were being used, that leaves other resources strained or people un-served. As a country I don't think we have enough qualified medical professionals to serve everyone even if we could somehow magically give everyone enough money to afford care.
It's really about what I expected- Richer people get better services, poor people remain the same.
The issues that Jay13x and DokudokuH talked about (geography) is an incredibly important part of the article, and there should be no doubt it'll be an incredibly important in the U.S.
It's the same here in America. The people who are insured get better services while the uninsured go to the ER, die, or become permanently disabled. The counties that have indigent health care usually are overburdened and inadequately staffed.
I've sat on all parts of the continuum--I've been uninsured, went through the county system, was on Medicaid, and currently I have the best health care that money can buy. Both me and my mom ended up in the ER because we were uninsured. We were fortunate enough to go through the indigent ER system and didn't have to pay anything. Others don't live in counties that have an indigent ER where people don't pay. They just have to go bankrupt, and the last I checked 50% of the bankruptcies in the country are due to medical bills. When I got health care through the county system it took months to get a regular appointment, and often they would just forget about you. It would take years to get a dental appointment, and it took my mom 7 months to see an OB/GYN. If you're pregnant you're just screwed for prenatal care.
Medicaid is great...provided that there are providers in your area that are 1. accepting Medicaid, and 2. accepting new patients. I had to see a primary care physician nearly 2 counties away, and I live in a large city. Doctors in wealthy Austin don't want to see Medicaid patients. They don't get reimbursed and the bureaucracy is a nightmare. I had better luck getting a provider in Houston where 1/3rd of the population is uninsured. Damn near every doctor in Houston accepts Medicaid.
So I currently have PPO insurance and Medicare because I'm disabled, and I get the best health care money can buy. Endometriosis surgery that costs 35k dollars? Free of charge, everything was handled in a matter of days. Get in a severely disabling car accident and have to be rushed to the ER? Totally paid for, didn't cost me a cent. I've had three surgeries in the past 2 years and didn't pay a dime. I don't pay copays for doctors visits, can see a specialist without a referral. I don't pay for flu shots, my copays for medicine range from .35 cents to $1.75. I thank my stars every day that I have health insurance.
Because of this, I'm the healthiest I've ever been. I never get sick, despite the fact that I have a really bad habit of rubbing my eyes and my nose due to allergies. When I didn't have insurance I got sick all the time. Strep throat, flu, the works. People say I'm unhealthy because I have to see so many specialists. That's just because I'm disabled. I'd rather see the specialists and be considered sick than not see them at all and be in danger of getting catastrophically ill.
The organization I work for advocates for Medicare for all. There's still a lot of issues with Medicare, though, as a person who is on it. If I had Medicare alone my medical expenses would be hefty.
I'd just like to throw out my 2 cents here. Assuming that the limiting factor is qualified health care workers. How else do you distribute those resources? Do you assign them by most critical need (which could lead to huge numbers of deaths as people don't get to see a doc until it's too late)? Do you assign them randomly (is it really going to be random for everyone? are we going to not assign a doc to the president?)?
I think it makes the most sense to leave it as a free market... yes poor people in rural areas get screwed and rich people in highly populated areas get a big benefit, but I don't see a better way to re-distribute those resources.
The thing that amazes me is how polarizing these riots are... I have seen everything from people calling the looters inbred morons to people stating their "friends" on Facebook posted the most racist thing they have ever seen.
It seems that some people believe that if you don't support looting and rioting you are a racist privileged white kid that represents everything wrong in the world (even though looting and rioting are illegal and all the evidence points to this not being a racially motivated/unjust shooting)... and on the other side if you let your emotions get the best of you in this case you must be the scum of the Earth (never-mind the fact that people also loot and riot over major sporting events).
Sadly I have a feeling once these completely ridiculous overreactions are past us nothing will have changed and our chance for a real discussion on what is right and wrong with law enforcement will be missed.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I do have a second hdd in there indeed, to keep al my other stuff on, which contains everything which is not Windows.
So you have 1 Hard drive with Windows, another hard drive with games and then a new harddrive you want to put new windows on? If that is the case. You should be able to just install windows on the new drive and then setup your game HD as a slave to it the way it is currently. Your game drive doesnt have anything windows on it, it's just a file system in a format that windows understands. You'd be able to plug that into "any" system and play the games.
What's the best way for the govt to deal with the rioters? How long before they stop using tear gas, in other words? Do you think the media paid off the cops etc to basically run a controlled riot to get ratings?
Right... the cops were paid off to allow millions of dollars of damage in their town for a bit of media? What makes you think extra incentive was needed for these riots? People riot over sporting events.
Yes, that is very logical, but I still worry that the people whose job it is to either create or enforce the laws may become arrogant and believe themselves to be superior to other people, and may even abuse that power. How can those people be prevented from doing so?
You can't. That's why for the most part we elect new people into positions of power every so often. This way we try to force the people in power to behave to keep their job and to have a stream of new people in power.
Not trying to be mean here but this "I feel that the other person should have deferred to me and treated me with greater respect and authority, on account of the fact that I am older than them and have experienced more of life than they have" sounds a lot like something out of the Elliot Rodger's manifesto... It makes you sound full of yourself and way to concerned with how other people perceive you. If somebody doesn't respect you, it doesn't matter how much they should no matter what your credentials are... the simple fact of the matter is they do not respect you and you just have to live with that.
Seriously, I think the FBI needs to get on said death threats and the Feds need to prosecute people. I find the casual death threats that are just thrown about everywhere really disturbing.
I agree fully. As long as people can make these threats with little to no risk of repercussions they are going to keep doing it. The more it happens the more it will become "normal".
Oh hey, the American Astronomical Society has weighed in on the side of common sense.
Getting called on a bad fashion choice also shouldn't justify death threats or whatever,
I've noticed that death threats seem to be inevitable whenever something breaks on the internet.
Unfortunately I think death threats have become a normal part of US culture... A couple weeks ago after the Packers beat the Bears (Football) people not only threatened the head coach of the Bears but also found his daughters on Twitter and sent then death/rape threats... I mean seriously? threatening young ladies because their dad is the coach of your favorite team and the team is sucking? Not only did that happen but it barely even registered as a story in the media.
So, while I'm not for trying someone in the court of public opinion, I can see why companies wouldn't want to work with him in the middle of this. Actors and comedians are a brand, for better or worse. Whether or not the allegations are justified, Cosby's brand is tainted right now and associated with Sexual Assault.
Related to the discussion of due process and the court of public opinion. What do people here think about the Adrian Peterson case? Criminally the matter is closed, the punishment has been settled, but the NFL will not reinstate him to play probably out of fear of backlash and possible loss of endorsements.
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
If you're okay with Wheaties not wanting him as part of the brand, why do you think the Vikings would want him as part of theirs? He has a contract with both organizations and is a public face of both brands because of his job with them.
Professional Sports teams are brands just like any other. Peterson's job at Wheaties was to pose for pictures so people can look at him and Wheaties can sell products and his job at the Vikings was run real good while people watch so the Vikings can sell product, what's the difference between the two?
Sorry I forgot to make an important distinction. Currently the NFL itself is preventing Adrian from playing. The teams in the NFL have no say. I believe he should be reinstated so the Vikings can decide what they want to do with them and if they release him then it would be up to the other 31 teams to decide whether or not any of them wish to take on his baggage. Right now the league itself is saying they don't want to deal with him which given the number of other criminals the NFL does allow to play seems very double standard.
Related to the discussion of due process and the court of public opinion. What do people here think about the Adrian Peterson case? Criminally the matter is closed, the punishment has been settled, but the NFL will not reinstate him to play probably out of fear of backlash and possible loss of endorsements.
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
The question is whether the article assumes the premises of Marxist-feminism. If you want to admit this article doesn't and go find another that does, go for it. Such articles are out there. This just isn't one of them.
Isn't the question whether or not the anti-shirt article is relevant because of Marxist-feminism? I feel like the article in the OP is asking whether or not these over-reactions and media frenzies are spawned out of marxist ideology. Not whether or not 1 particular anti-shirt article is an example of Marxist-feminism.
So much time? Like... 40 years?
From what I understand the explanation for the major change from I-III to IV tech-wise was you went from a Universe that's been relatively peaceful for some amount of time and is largely non-militaristic. This would naturally lead to stagnant tech advancement and possibly to governments spending money on "cool" looking ships and things instead of purely functional equipment. Then you go to Episode VI and we're in a Universe that has been at war for a couple decades. It makes sense for major changes in military tech as much of the random equipment each individual World possessed was probably destroyed in fighting and equipment had to be streamlined for cost and speed of manufacturing (no more pretty random ships). It would make sense then that in the following decades of the same war with the economy still in the toilet that any upgrades would just be applied to the same basic shell and likely not result in a completely new ship (like retro fitting newer radar or missiles onto old battleships and fighter jets).
Also... Obi Wan clearly new what an R2 unit was... R2 units clearly existed in Episodes I-III so I have no idea why that is even being discussed. That being said, I believe it was Episode IV before Luke goes to blow up the first Death Star when someone mentions to him that they could find him a newer R2 unit, which implies that while there were upgrades and advancements made to those droids, they were not necessary to function with Rebel ships and the 2 decade old R2-D2 was perfectly capable of being used.
So... is your hypothesis that there are a bunch of unemployed Doctors in urban areas? If you move resources out to rural areas they have to come from somewhere. Assuming that those resources were being used, that leaves other resources strained or people un-served. As a country I don't think we have enough qualified medical professionals to serve everyone even if we could somehow magically give everyone enough money to afford care.
I'd just like to throw out my 2 cents here. Assuming that the limiting factor is qualified health care workers. How else do you distribute those resources? Do you assign them by most critical need (which could lead to huge numbers of deaths as people don't get to see a doc until it's too late)? Do you assign them randomly (is it really going to be random for everyone? are we going to not assign a doc to the president?)?
I think it makes the most sense to leave it as a free market... yes poor people in rural areas get screwed and rich people in highly populated areas get a big benefit, but I don't see a better way to re-distribute those resources.
This is really ridiculous
It seems that some people believe that if you don't support looting and rioting you are a racist privileged white kid that represents everything wrong in the world (even though looting and rioting are illegal and all the evidence points to this not being a racially motivated/unjust shooting)... and on the other side if you let your emotions get the best of you in this case you must be the scum of the Earth (never-mind the fact that people also loot and riot over major sporting events).
Sadly I have a feeling once these completely ridiculous overreactions are past us nothing will have changed and our chance for a real discussion on what is right and wrong with law enforcement will be missed.
So you have 1 Hard drive with Windows, another hard drive with games and then a new harddrive you want to put new windows on? If that is the case. You should be able to just install windows on the new drive and then setup your game HD as a slave to it the way it is currently. Your game drive doesnt have anything windows on it, it's just a file system in a format that windows understands. You'd be able to plug that into "any" system and play the games.
Right... the cops were paid off to allow millions of dollars of damage in their town for a bit of media? What makes you think extra incentive was needed for these riots? People riot over sporting events.
You can't. That's why for the most part we elect new people into positions of power every so often. This way we try to force the people in power to behave to keep their job and to have a stream of new people in power.
I agree fully. As long as people can make these threats with little to no risk of repercussions they are going to keep doing it. The more it happens the more it will become "normal".
Unfortunately I think death threats have become a normal part of US culture... A couple weeks ago after the Packers beat the Bears (Football) people not only threatened the head coach of the Bears but also found his daughters on Twitter and sent then death/rape threats... I mean seriously? threatening young ladies because their dad is the coach of your favorite team and the team is sucking? Not only did that happen but it barely even registered as a story in the media.
Sorry I forgot to make an important distinction. Currently the NFL itself is preventing Adrian from playing. The teams in the NFL have no say. I believe he should be reinstated so the Vikings can decide what they want to do with them and if they release him then it would be up to the other 31 teams to decide whether or not any of them wish to take on his baggage. Right now the league itself is saying they don't want to deal with him which given the number of other criminals the NFL does allow to play seems very double standard.
I can get behind Wheaties not putting AP on their boxes anymore or any other commercial deal directly related to AP... but is it really necessary to take away this guy's job for an act that legally got him a misdemeanor and a fine? As members of the public is that really what we should be demanding? "If you employ this guy we won't buy your goods and services" seems like a pretty steep demand for the public to put on a business.
Isn't the question whether or not the anti-shirt article is relevant because of Marxist-feminism? I feel like the article in the OP is asking whether or not these over-reactions and media frenzies are spawned out of marxist ideology. Not whether or not 1 particular anti-shirt article is an example of Marxist-feminism.