The "war on women" had validity in that it did attack somethings that were generally female in particular, and I do feel that considering the actual make up of some of these legislature groups being mostly men of a certain age and race. That we need to take a step back and perhaps look at different ways to sort out some of these social problems rather than through directly the law. Women, much like men, don't like being told what to do by a large segment of the other sex. The fear is that once you get rid of abortion then the next step is contraceptives in general, which is a valid fear since the Catholic Church does not support it's use and its only a hop, skip, and a jump for other social conservatives to acquire as a tag line.
For the most part, I feel that the real nuts and bolts for problems with conservatives is that there's too much of a take from welfare while taking the attitude "we can tell you what to do socially" as a means to preserve some vapid tradition that has been in decline for centuries. As a conservative, I must say that the lack of policy inventiveness in recent years and the total neglect for options such as adoption have caused me to really look at the modern conservative groups as lacking a core focus and nuance to fix problems. Libertarianism has been gaining a foothold and is a larger part of the conservative movement, but lacks a central message. I just feel that it maybe time to create a different set of ideologies and let conservative/liberal die off.
Well, these strange people do exist and come around with strange beliefs they feel are true. There's been a few of the whooley headed anarchists such as Shining Blue Eyes that aren't extremely good at their debating skills nor are intellectually well grounded in their own arguments. Others, I've found more resounding such as Surging Chaos or Ijosspiere to be able to come to a good debate without negating inherent weaknesses of their own philosophy. Overall, betwixt most of these stranger ideas like Neo-Reactionaries like Mencius Moldbug offer me little confidence that these "ideas" are anything more than utopian groups or hippies in their attempts to reorganize society.
Altogether, I feel that there are some natural, predestined routes towards social organization that make specific "dreams" such as communism or anarchism unrealistic without geographical, material, and demographic specifics to maintain self-reinforcing norms and values over a long haul without usurpation, direct conquest, or just plain apathy (which happened to most Utopian and Hippy groups).
Feminism in particular was a white rich woman's game that eventually got more focus as women in the middle class in college gave more voice, however those women also had real issues to vent against the old order. Even then, the reactionism has went too far in seeing men as an escape goat to everything that befalls women. The women empowerment movement has been successful, but a question that I come down is to redefine who we are as "men" as well as "women." That is we need to directly discuss the role of our own children within our culture, especially when I look upon young students practicing for marching band in the summer for some parade. I ask myself, "Wouldn't they be better served doing some vocational work and dating?"
While many areas are defined by their local football teams, cheerleaders, and marching bands. I have come to question the focus with education extracurriculars in regards to these prime pieces being so much put up. Where are the young entrepreneurs being rewarded and having their own trophy case? That is something I truly ask. I feel that it begins there with the segmentation early on where we look upon trivialities with much jubiliation without giving proper order to having children vet out their own life experiences as they become adults. Why are so few children drawn to politics or real vocations? Because we rob them of time preparing them for the future, rather than allowing them to enjoy the current era they are in. This doesn't degrade from summer love songs and the like, but rather that we must practice looking at ourselves first in the "adult world" and how we choose to order society through segregation and wonder why "kids and college kids are so naive about office politics." It's because we make the system that way.
Perhaps it is in that beginning for segregation of a kind that we allow for these kinds of ideas to fester, as the capacity to have free discussion and open thought in our public schools are stifled by ABC organizations that are scared about nude anatomy, the word ***** being said in class, or "not enough conservative or liberal materials" being taught in the abomination we call social studies. No wonder people see history and other areas of social science as a front for wasting tax payer dollars. It's because we disconnect the value from the education which is only gained through application and experience.
European society has a long standing fear of Islam in general, Christianity had it been weaker at certain ebbs would not exist in the places where it does today, either. I feel that this stuff dates back centuries, and it's not easy to undo some of the prejudices against ethnic groups. Take for example anti-Jewish propaganda began in Antioch under pagan Rome. So yea, these "ancient memes" are going to be hard to kill off and will take probably centuries. The Swedes aren't any different than most European groups, the Germans for example still count people after multiple generations as "guest workers" which is an abomination to German's stellar record for being a wonderful place for employment. That and Japan has had several issues going as far as to take in "immigrants" descended from Japanese in South America for young blood. These people were, for the most part, mestizo anyway ironically. Blood purity and excuses to use as citizenship are screwball. While I dislike some of the "anchor baby" issues with the US, we do a better job at immigration because we've been at it for so long and fought a war with a slave group that beats the drum against racism to this day.
High risk drivers are... Ever heard of the portion of auto insurance to cover uninsured drivers? (and yes, even in must carry states it's still mandatory)
You simply have no concept of what contractual insurance means, and can't separate it in your mind from product insurances. Service based insurances are almost always subsidies in your perversion of the word.
Hell, read Consumer Reports sometimes on their product insurance recommendations, only one's they ever recommend are those with a net positive for most cases - a subsidy being paid for by those that get product insurance on the other items that are losers on the odds game.
"Government is bad, private sector good."
Government's moreover a tool, you either misuse it or you do not. Sometimes the private sector in attempt to solve a complex problem is like using a butter knife as a screw driver, it just cannot deal with the load. Take for instance the Food Stamps system versus local soup kitchens and bread lines. One is "more local" and more "community oriented" but way less efficient and rather embarrassing and time consuming for those involved trying to feed their children. While the Food Stamps program has purged that from communities and Food Banks, today still struggling five years into the recession, very much help and exist to deal with hunger in the US. Yet, both do not quite deal with the overall problem.
The question to use government is a utility question, not much a paranoid statement about warping markets and their absolute sovereignty over all of existence. I'm an unabashed neo-liberal that believes only in capitalism as a way of life and that the bigger the private sector the better the country. Yet, there are rules of engagement and arbitration. What may have once been "minimal" for government, as expectations and philosophies have changed we no longer function off of what we used to mean as "minimal government." When someone such as myself says "small government" and someone else says "small government," it will mean very different things. Some seek to repeal every law because individuals are these sovereign ubermensch that have control and know everything that is going to happen and can make more resilient behaviors. Until we see what happens with Sandyhook and other such incidents. Then the same people who cry for small government and talk about a government that can give you everything can take everything away, but wants a strong super military misses out that a well armed healthcare system can already take everything away without even trying. It's the police and the military that you would have to eliminate to really be able to "take back government" under a tyranny or else ally with a super power, like we did with France centuries ago.
With regard to healthcare, there was an experimental system with regard to Medicare:
Basically during the 1990's as a part of the balanced budget affairs the government created some incentives to create programs that would improve patient care. Well a bunch of places tried to experiment with those contracts, and only one worked really well statistically and has yet to be scaled up anywhere and was almost shut down. It uses a community driven healthcare program, other similar programs I have read and watched about both point towards trying to mitigate costs by having people interact with people to solve problems.
I'll say this, had Sarah Palin talked about the Fountain of Youth program and other similar attempts than snivel about Death Panels and "repeal and replace," she could be president of the US herself or Romney. But conservatives are stupid, we put in good systems and get some real gems then we just pretend like we didn't do anything right for 20 years and watch young people become Democrats in droves. Then in turn we publish idiot books like Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation by Jason Mattera. I'm an older man, but when I saw this book I thought to myself as a conservative.. "What kind of idiot publishes a book like that?" You start treating people like they're stupid and you end up with a massive exodus into the other party. You know what? Four years later, Republicans still have a problem as the Party of No/Anti-Obama. I agree with Jeb Bush, you have to stand for something than just against it. I'd really hate to see Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton, but for now with what's shaping up for 2016 that's about the best two I can hope to vote between.
Quote from What’s keeping less expensive versions of biologic drugs off the U.S. market?[/quote »
NewsHour looks at a revolutionary class of drugs called "biologics." Americans have been paying more for their benefits than patients in Europe or Asia some say, because the "generic" versions or "biosimilars" have not hit the U.S. market. Dr. Emily Senay looks into why there's a delay and when American consumers can expect discounts.
Basically biological drugs that aren't able to be made into generics because they're hard to replicate, instead Europe allows for "Biosimilars" to be made and sold at a cheaper discount. However, our laws that were written in the 1970's haven't kept up to speed and many major companies have lobbied to keep it that way. I had watched the interview about a company representative during the interview basically said that the medicines were expensive to make, yet in other countries the biosimilars were 20-50% cheaper.
Do we really have a market based economy here, or are we just pretending to pay lip service to capitalism while burrowing our own heads into our posteriors? I am frankly really knocking conservative free market radicals and government as both parties have been loath to get anything done. I'm fine with recouping money, but one drug in particular according to the report was making $100 million dollars a month since 1989. That's a bit absurd with a monopoly on production. And this is why folks we have Obamacare and other forms of socialism and higher taxes, where certain market forces that do work with medicine aren't able to compete at all drive up costs and then people start saying "I'm old, give me free money so I can live longer." Which is really hard to justify to someone whose actually, well, alive and rather functional as a human being to justify "No sir, we're going to make you die because we're too cheap."
After a while, I see this "Armageddon" to better come now than before I retire. Other nations who made this transition took about 10-15 years to work it's way through. I'm confident that through Democrat and Republican management over the long term will fix the issues along with a heavy conversation and a lot of capitalism finally looking at the costs of healthcare. Stop hiding it, make everyone bleed directly. I love it.
Do we really want to send a message that people need to hide their beliefs?
Especially when we're desperately seeking transparency in campaign finance.
I actually don't think this particular incident rises to the level of political bullying. A CEO is a major public figure, and refusing to do business with a firm is well within anyone's rights. But people (on all sides, of course) definitely do use the public donor rolls as a target list for harassment. And what it does is strengthen the argument that anonymity in political donations is necessary to protect that freedom. Does that make anyone else uncomfortable?
If I post something online with my full name, my work, where I live, and ect. Then my "future employers" are fully able to Google what I believe in and so forth all at their finger tips. Equally, if I ran for office, I'd have an anal probe and my entire life up for grabs. Anything and everything would be up for grabs. The same thing if I was rich and famous, my life would become a part of TMZ's bottom line.
Whereas years ago, you could actually have sex with your secretary as a politician and it wouldn't be headline news. You could actually write something in college and not have it follow you. The more I mull this over, I feel that we're seeing the upper portions of our society finally see the bad side of unlimited harassment with unlimited information. Let's call not hiring someone for being an anarchist, that's a form of exclusion and considered shunning and bullying. Just because it's "within someone's rights" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have decorum and an understanding about people's lives and choices.
Employer Googling is a target list for harassment, even if someone has a drink on Facebook in their hand there's pressure to remove those pictures. I for one am glad that people are finally seeing the heat. It's started with our young people going onto sex predator lists for sexting each other, then cyber bullying, then employees getting screwed with search, celebrities having a camera up their posterior for their careers, politicians always being judged, and now finally it's the lone guy who gives money. I for one welcome them into the new world order, because when everyone gets screwed equally by this system then we can start having a conversation about decorum and what is acceptable to harass over and what is not.
Digital ethics and policies have been a long time coming, and things have to get really bad until they get better. Once this vigilante voyeurism in our society is reckoned with, then we can move on as a society and enjoy more of the fruits of the internet revolution. This is no different than any other commercial revolution in the past, we just need to start and update our culture a bit. But that normally takes a few thunks to the head at all strata.
Death is natural and so I have no problem with it. I do take exception when a person tries to deprive another person of their life without sufficient cause.
Not dying isn't feasible with the resources available to us right now. I suspect that within a century or two there will be a way to save a person's memory totality in a computer and in that way we will no longer die. At that point we could probably walk among the breathers in robot body's controlled mentally. A while after that we could have new bodies made for us after the old one is used up(or just becomes suboptimal). Maybe five or six centuries from today...we could make organic bodies that don't degrade at all. They wouldn't be anything like our bodies are today and perhaps we'll have outgrown any notion that sentience is tied to humanity or that our original form is sancrosect and shouldn't be changed.
Except from my limited understanding is that you still die, the "copy" lives on. So, death will still be there. Unless if you can make someone's body immortal, though. Which comes down towards whether we can accept a "digital copy" as a "person" and whether that "immortal copy" is "good enough for immortality."
The original agreement to pass Obamacare was for exception for birth control, they need to go with that original agreement under the healthcare legislation itself currently. The second piece is "should or ought" with employers is completely facetious, why should my employer have that much power over me in the first place? Depending on the spouse, then people will lose their healthcare. Healthcare is wicked complex, because there are too many variables. I prefer to defer towards more market economy, with this "healthcare ebay" it's a good start towards getting rid of Veterans and Eldercare back into the mainstream economy. We have about four systems:
1. Healthcare for the poor
2. Healthcare for veterans
3. Healthcare for the elderly (originally intended for the "poor elderly")
4. Everyone else
As a #4, I do not see #1 being a very good system at all. It's spotty and sucks, needs to be mainstreamed and ironed into the system with the low cost affordability is spread towards everyone such as starting couples. #2 is more dicey because I do see "some" and I repeat "some" need for specialized healthcare for veterans, but a completely separate system? No, no more special treatment just because you were a fry cook for 2 years and get lifelong healthcare. No, if you have a real MSO like infantry or were a fry cook in combat, then fine sure we can begin to discuss things that actually affect your treatment. The elderly, I do not find to be that special and gradually moving them towards a more blind system that has restrictions and laws in grained against discrimination would be more preferable towards a government based healthcare.
The desocialization process begins by stating that the areas where we have oversocialized the system are to be converted, over time, with people's consent towards a better system that underpromises and over delivers. Slowly building a good brand for private health insurance for individuals, or as much as we can without creating more Adam Lanza's and other such things. Because that is why government will always be there. To protect a person with cancer or the crazy maniac with a gun killing little kids before that person becomes a crazy maniac, maybe they're still crazy or the person still has cancer with some after effects and limitations on health. But at least that cancer survivor or that less crazy person can live a good life with some diminished capacities relative to their situation. No different than a person in a wheelchair has to give somethings up, but does not have to give everything in life up.
I believe that the over subsidized housing system is one area where we can gut that some what, and then in turn over the next half decade take those funds and redirect them towards healthcare system, singular not plural, and moving towards paying down the deficit.
Overall, I don't want my government nor my employer telling me what I need or don't need within reason for my health insurance.
But if you enjoy rolling over people at your LGS with splinter twin while they have mono blue bears because they can't afford a better deck because let's say they're working a second job to pay for a family members medical costs then have fun.
I personally don't play competitively outside of Limited, but in this hypothetical, if this person is so strapped for cash why are they spending money on entry fees and other expenses if they aren't even going to put together a real deck? That's assuming Blue Bears (great deck name BTW) is actually bad -- it could be awesome for all I know. Competitive budget options always exist. Heck, before mono black became the deck to beat, you could get all the pieces for like $30. If you're creative you can easily build competitive decks on the cheap, especially if you have friends you can borrow cards from.
The point is that the moment you sign up for an actual tournament, you accept that everyone is going to play their best to win. Thus you lose the right to complain when someone plays fairly with a legal deck and beats you consistently. If you don't like it either change your deck to combat this new challenge, or stop attending the tournament. What you shouldn't do is pout and throw a hissyfit by refusing to even shuffle up for a game because his deck is better than yours.
P.S. I said it was unreasonable for you to expect this player to only play in major tournaments when they are held infrequently and often require major travel and time commitment, as well as expenses. Just because he is a good player and has a good deck that shouldn't exclude him from playing at the LGS that is both convenient and regularly scheduled.
In a single player setting for such tournament, this is why I always have a "competitive deck" and "jerk.dec." "Jerk.dec" is basically whatever the most annoying deck I can build I build. The other is a "loaner model" if someone wants to play it. Sharuum infinite combo and the like tends to keep the power players trying to go off first, however unless if they don't play EDH enough or know their net deck list good enough. Can normally defeat them.
The most annoying I tend to find are those who use multiplayer tactics, such as "my friends let's kill all the strangers and keep this game to ourselves" strategies. I saw that trap once coming, was able to communicate with the other player by stating specifically the strategies of their decks and then following up with keeping specific hoser cards in my hand against the both of them. It made for a fun 2 headed pseudo giant game, was fun for us and not so much for the other guys without knowing their decks that well.
Ukraine economically sucks, this is what I expected all along that this would occur.
It's what everybody expected would happen, CM, and Ukraine's economy had nothing to do with it. Nobody who was paying any attention whatsoever was under any illusions that the referendum was going to be anything but a sham.
Their economy couldn't afford a powerful enough military to repulse Russian encroachment, plus the Crimean ports are warm water. This is something that Russia proper lacks currently. The seizure was purely militaristic, certainly, and the vote a sham. But a sham becomes reality when you can't repulse the invasion.
The numbers are in, and 95.5% of Crimeans apparently voted to join Russia. That sounds like an absolutely trustworthy and legitimate result.
Ukraine economically sucks, this is what I expected all along that this would occur. Russia will pay a price, though, in the effect that it has already made Baltic states with ethnic Russians on guard against them.
Quote from Senori[/quote »
I'd love to meet that 4.5%.
They're fleeing to Ukraine proper now. Others will just assimilate into Crimean Russia.
There are some songs I enjoy from different time periods, classical, rock, rap, and on and on. I find the variety we have available today to be far better as we find different things from the past that add value. I am not impressed by "rock" or worship "rock" as a medium. If it dies, like Blue Grass and so many others, then so be it. We have recordings, Elvis impersonators, and on and on. The legacy of the genre will live on, and I agree with whomever said about the sub genres and mutation. It's just that the system has changed. It seems that techno, dub step and friends, are in vogue now. This is the 21st century after all.
This is the best way to play Voltron, Voltron someone with their own general.
For the most part, I feel that the real nuts and bolts for problems with conservatives is that there's too much of a take from welfare while taking the attitude "we can tell you what to do socially" as a means to preserve some vapid tradition that has been in decline for centuries. As a conservative, I must say that the lack of policy inventiveness in recent years and the total neglect for options such as adoption have caused me to really look at the modern conservative groups as lacking a core focus and nuance to fix problems. Libertarianism has been gaining a foothold and is a larger part of the conservative movement, but lacks a central message. I just feel that it maybe time to create a different set of ideologies and let conservative/liberal die off.
Altogether, I feel that there are some natural, predestined routes towards social organization that make specific "dreams" such as communism or anarchism unrealistic without geographical, material, and demographic specifics to maintain self-reinforcing norms and values over a long haul without usurpation, direct conquest, or just plain apathy (which happened to most Utopian and Hippy groups).
Feminism in particular was a white rich woman's game that eventually got more focus as women in the middle class in college gave more voice, however those women also had real issues to vent against the old order. Even then, the reactionism has went too far in seeing men as an escape goat to everything that befalls women. The women empowerment movement has been successful, but a question that I come down is to redefine who we are as "men" as well as "women." That is we need to directly discuss the role of our own children within our culture, especially when I look upon young students practicing for marching band in the summer for some parade. I ask myself, "Wouldn't they be better served doing some vocational work and dating?"
While many areas are defined by their local football teams, cheerleaders, and marching bands. I have come to question the focus with education extracurriculars in regards to these prime pieces being so much put up. Where are the young entrepreneurs being rewarded and having their own trophy case? That is something I truly ask. I feel that it begins there with the segmentation early on where we look upon trivialities with much jubiliation without giving proper order to having children vet out their own life experiences as they become adults. Why are so few children drawn to politics or real vocations? Because we rob them of time preparing them for the future, rather than allowing them to enjoy the current era they are in. This doesn't degrade from summer love songs and the like, but rather that we must practice looking at ourselves first in the "adult world" and how we choose to order society through segregation and wonder why "kids and college kids are so naive about office politics." It's because we make the system that way.
Perhaps it is in that beginning for segregation of a kind that we allow for these kinds of ideas to fester, as the capacity to have free discussion and open thought in our public schools are stifled by ABC organizations that are scared about nude anatomy, the word ***** being said in class, or "not enough conservative or liberal materials" being taught in the abomination we call social studies. No wonder people see history and other areas of social science as a front for wasting tax payer dollars. It's because we disconnect the value from the education which is only gained through application and experience.
Then there's always football....
It's already been plotted out for a while now.
"Government is bad, private sector good."
Government's moreover a tool, you either misuse it or you do not. Sometimes the private sector in attempt to solve a complex problem is like using a butter knife as a screw driver, it just cannot deal with the load. Take for instance the Food Stamps system versus local soup kitchens and bread lines. One is "more local" and more "community oriented" but way less efficient and rather embarrassing and time consuming for those involved trying to feed their children. While the Food Stamps program has purged that from communities and Food Banks, today still struggling five years into the recession, very much help and exist to deal with hunger in the US. Yet, both do not quite deal with the overall problem.
The question to use government is a utility question, not much a paranoid statement about warping markets and their absolute sovereignty over all of existence. I'm an unabashed neo-liberal that believes only in capitalism as a way of life and that the bigger the private sector the better the country. Yet, there are rules of engagement and arbitration. What may have once been "minimal" for government, as expectations and philosophies have changed we no longer function off of what we used to mean as "minimal government." When someone such as myself says "small government" and someone else says "small government," it will mean very different things. Some seek to repeal every law because individuals are these sovereign ubermensch that have control and know everything that is going to happen and can make more resilient behaviors. Until we see what happens with Sandyhook and other such incidents. Then the same people who cry for small government and talk about a government that can give you everything can take everything away, but wants a strong super military misses out that a well armed healthcare system can already take everything away without even trying. It's the police and the military that you would have to eliminate to really be able to "take back government" under a tyranny or else ally with a super power, like we did with France centuries ago.
With regard to healthcare, there was an experimental system with regard to Medicare:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/28/if-this-was-a-pill-youd-do-anything-to-get-it/
Basically during the 1990's as a part of the balanced budget affairs the government created some incentives to create programs that would improve patient care. Well a bunch of places tried to experiment with those contracts, and only one worked really well statistically and has yet to be scaled up anywhere and was almost shut down. It uses a community driven healthcare program, other similar programs I have read and watched about both point towards trying to mitigate costs by having people interact with people to solve problems.
I'll say this, had Sarah Palin talked about the Fountain of Youth program and other similar attempts than snivel about Death Panels and "repeal and replace," she could be president of the US herself or Romney. But conservatives are stupid, we put in good systems and get some real gems then we just pretend like we didn't do anything right for 20 years and watch young people become Democrats in droves. Then in turn we publish idiot books like Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation by Jason Mattera. I'm an older man, but when I saw this book I thought to myself as a conservative.. "What kind of idiot publishes a book like that?" You start treating people like they're stupid and you end up with a massive exodus into the other party. You know what? Four years later, Republicans still have a problem as the Party of No/Anti-Obama. I agree with Jeb Bush, you have to stand for something than just against it. I'd really hate to see Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton, but for now with what's shaping up for 2016 that's about the best two I can hope to vote between.
Basically biological drugs that aren't able to be made into generics because they're hard to replicate, instead Europe allows for "Biosimilars" to be made and sold at a cheaper discount. However, our laws that were written in the 1970's haven't kept up to speed and many major companies have lobbied to keep it that way. I had watched the interview about a company representative during the interview basically said that the medicines were expensive to make, yet in other countries the biosimilars were 20-50% cheaper.
Do we really have a market based economy here, or are we just pretending to pay lip service to capitalism while burrowing our own heads into our posteriors? I am frankly really knocking conservative free market radicals and government as both parties have been loath to get anything done. I'm fine with recouping money, but one drug in particular according to the report was making $100 million dollars a month since 1989. That's a bit absurd with a monopoly on production. And this is why folks we have Obamacare and other forms of socialism and higher taxes, where certain market forces that do work with medicine aren't able to compete at all drive up costs and then people start saying "I'm old, give me free money so I can live longer." Which is really hard to justify to someone whose actually, well, alive and rather functional as a human being to justify "No sir, we're going to make you die because we're too cheap."
If I post something online with my full name, my work, where I live, and ect. Then my "future employers" are fully able to Google what I believe in and so forth all at their finger tips. Equally, if I ran for office, I'd have an anal probe and my entire life up for grabs. Anything and everything would be up for grabs. The same thing if I was rich and famous, my life would become a part of TMZ's bottom line.
Whereas years ago, you could actually have sex with your secretary as a politician and it wouldn't be headline news. You could actually write something in college and not have it follow you. The more I mull this over, I feel that we're seeing the upper portions of our society finally see the bad side of unlimited harassment with unlimited information. Let's call not hiring someone for being an anarchist, that's a form of exclusion and considered shunning and bullying. Just because it's "within someone's rights" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have decorum and an understanding about people's lives and choices.
Employer Googling is a target list for harassment, even if someone has a drink on Facebook in their hand there's pressure to remove those pictures. I for one am glad that people are finally seeing the heat. It's started with our young people going onto sex predator lists for sexting each other, then cyber bullying, then employees getting screwed with search, celebrities having a camera up their posterior for their careers, politicians always being judged, and now finally it's the lone guy who gives money. I for one welcome them into the new world order, because when everyone gets screwed equally by this system then we can start having a conversation about decorum and what is acceptable to harass over and what is not.
Digital ethics and policies have been a long time coming, and things have to get really bad until they get better. Once this vigilante voyeurism in our society is reckoned with, then we can move on as a society and enjoy more of the fruits of the internet revolution. This is no different than any other commercial revolution in the past, we just need to start and update our culture a bit. But that normally takes a few thunks to the head at all strata.
Except from my limited understanding is that you still die, the "copy" lives on. So, death will still be there. Unless if you can make someone's body immortal, though. Which comes down towards whether we can accept a "digital copy" as a "person" and whether that "immortal copy" is "good enough for immortality."
1. Healthcare for the poor
2. Healthcare for veterans
3. Healthcare for the elderly (originally intended for the "poor elderly")
4. Everyone else
As a #4, I do not see #1 being a very good system at all. It's spotty and sucks, needs to be mainstreamed and ironed into the system with the low cost affordability is spread towards everyone such as starting couples. #2 is more dicey because I do see "some" and I repeat "some" need for specialized healthcare for veterans, but a completely separate system? No, no more special treatment just because you were a fry cook for 2 years and get lifelong healthcare. No, if you have a real MSO like infantry or were a fry cook in combat, then fine sure we can begin to discuss things that actually affect your treatment. The elderly, I do not find to be that special and gradually moving them towards a more blind system that has restrictions and laws in grained against discrimination would be more preferable towards a government based healthcare.
The desocialization process begins by stating that the areas where we have oversocialized the system are to be converted, over time, with people's consent towards a better system that underpromises and over delivers. Slowly building a good brand for private health insurance for individuals, or as much as we can without creating more Adam Lanza's and other such things. Because that is why government will always be there. To protect a person with cancer or the crazy maniac with a gun killing little kids before that person becomes a crazy maniac, maybe they're still crazy or the person still has cancer with some after effects and limitations on health. But at least that cancer survivor or that less crazy person can live a good life with some diminished capacities relative to their situation. No different than a person in a wheelchair has to give somethings up, but does not have to give everything in life up.
I believe that the over subsidized housing system is one area where we can gut that some what, and then in turn over the next half decade take those funds and redirect them towards healthcare system, singular not plural, and moving towards paying down the deficit.
Overall, I don't want my government nor my employer telling me what I need or don't need within reason for my health insurance.
In a single player setting for such tournament, this is why I always have a "competitive deck" and "jerk.dec." "Jerk.dec" is basically whatever the most annoying deck I can build I build. The other is a "loaner model" if someone wants to play it. Sharuum infinite combo and the like tends to keep the power players trying to go off first, however unless if they don't play EDH enough or know their net deck list good enough. Can normally defeat them.
The most annoying I tend to find are those who use multiplayer tactics, such as "my friends let's kill all the strangers and keep this game to ourselves" strategies. I saw that trap once coming, was able to communicate with the other player by stating specifically the strategies of their decks and then following up with keeping specific hoser cards in my hand against the both of them. It made for a fun 2 headed pseudo giant game, was fun for us and not so much for the other guys without knowing their decks that well.
Their economy couldn't afford a powerful enough military to repulse Russian encroachment, plus the Crimean ports are warm water. This is something that Russia proper lacks currently. The seizure was purely militaristic, certainly, and the vote a sham. But a sham becomes reality when you can't repulse the invasion.
Ukraine economically sucks, this is what I expected all along that this would occur. Russia will pay a price, though, in the effect that it has already made Baltic states with ethnic Russians on guard against them.
They're fleeing to Ukraine proper now. Others will just assimilate into Crimean Russia.