That and it's to what degree one partakes in various activities.
You can't say a 'smoker' who smokes one cigarette a day is going to cost 'society' more than a guy who drives at 95 MPH five times a week or the guy who chugs 10 coffees before lunch everyday. Statistically you could find any numbers you were looking for with the right control group.
People's bodies are different as well - some can smoke a lot, and live to a ripe old age. Others will never smoke a day in their life and die to something else before 50 - was that because of a certain habit of theirs? Very possible - then again, maybe it wasn't.
So should their kids pay more in taxes because potentially their genetics will cost the healthcare system more?
Heck, Basic Training in the Military could be considered 'higher risk for medical care' needed - or long term service once they are out and a Veteran. Same with Fire Personnel, Police..
Then we get into Sports: Football, Boxing - obviously a 'heightened' risk.
If you don't exercise right - it's well known it can cause more damage than good - so should we monitor people to see if they are exercising right - like in 1984?
Because by doing all this - that's what people are asking for.
Should taxpayers who don't smoke or drink be burdened with the enormous costs of medical care, criminal prosecutions, funerals, diminished productivity, and other directly associated expenses created by smokers and drinkers?
What about the same for those who exercise too much, drive too fast, eat too much sugar, drink too much coffee, eat too many chips, eat not enough food, work too much, stare at a monitor too long, stay up too late, watch too much TV..
When should this list stop?
Many, many, many things can be considered 'bad for your health'. Heck, just about anything at all can be - with the right 'spin' applied.
It never will - like an avalanche, once it gets going.
Alright dudes, it's time to pass the joint of whatever you are smoking. Keep the tin foil hats though.
*psst* Tell this dude to ditch his too:
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since
the days of Andrew Jackson."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882-1945), 32nd US President
November 21, 1933
Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House
If Wal-Mart ran the country, our budget would be in better shape.
And no - if Wal-Mart ran the country, it's customer's would all be outsourced to China.
Funny, how people's memories seem to be so short. Wal-Mart's whole claim to fame and what made them a success was the concept of hiring US workers and providing US goods, it gave people a reason that Wal-Mart was 'different' and there was a good reason to shop - not anymore: Now they give US Workers as little as possible and provide Chinese goods. They can keep them.
I think the official corporate stance would be: "As long at the quarterly balance sheets are in order, starving people don't matter."
Of course, eventually, you'll starve most of your consumers. In order for profits to perpetually rise you need a perpetually growing customer base.
But business thinks too short-term from that, and the contrary to all the moaning and groaning about 'today's economy' - I think we are feeling the effects of outsourcing now.
Oh my my my, Mark - isn't doesn't seem you want to be as 'transparent' as you insist for your users, do you?
"It hasn't been a great week for Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
For starters, his company's brand new advertising initiative is facing serious backlash from users and advertisers alike (chief among them Coca-Cola, which has put a moratorium on its dealings with Facebook). Then, 02138, the independent Harvard alumni magazine, published a story rather sympathetic to the plight of three former classmates of Zuckerberg who are suing him for stealing their idea and initial computer code. Finally, Monday, a federal judge turned down Zuck's attempt to force 02138 to remove from its website a copy of his handwritten college application essay, as well as excerpts of an online journal he kept while at Harvard."http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/12/mark-zuckerberg-likes-to-get-drunk-and-co de.phphttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03facebook.html?ex=1354338000&en=be421e32 fe7dc977&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear?
Don't ask, don't tell?
Depends on who's making the rules - and how they define 'wrong'.
What's so wrong with people's right to privacy? If they aren't doing anything wrong, then why is privacy an issue?
The statement "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear?" is wrong in itself - it doesn't adhere to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' - and history has clearly proven that concept to be vitally important to any free society.
Along with:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The people that came up with these concepts, came up with them for a reason; in a time when they clearly saw the worst parts of 'humanity'.
If we ignore the lessons of history; we are doomed to repeat them.
No so long ago; in the 30's - it was 'wrong' to belong to various racial and ethnic groups. Not just in Nazi Germany either - ask any black person who lived in the Southern Part of the U.S. during that time.
In those times there were some things considered 'wrong' by certain groups of people like:
Being a Jew.
Being a Christian.
Being a Gypsy.
Blacks sitting in the front of the bus.
Blacks going to white schools.
Blacks eating in White Restaurants.
In order to preserve our freedoms, we MUST insist upon all of them.
Give Tyrants an inch and they'll take your whole country. And yes, they do still exist.
I shut my cable off 3 months ago - saving $90.00 a month.
That's enough for NetFlix and one of two other options 1-2 Blu-Rays a month or I can go to the pawn shop and get the older format DVD's for $2.00 a pop - which I usually do, the upconvertors do a good enough job to justify the 38/48 dollar savings per disc, IMHO.
If I do the NetFlix + Pawnshop route, I can watch about as many movies a month as I want to - and Blu-Ray along with the 'bad economy' is leaving *no shortage* of DVD's at the Pawn Shops, heh. (That's like 30 movies a month purchased and 15/20ish via NetFlix) - 30-45 movies a month is one a day or more - plenty to watch and I get to keep most of it.
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
You can't say a 'smoker' who smokes one cigarette a day is going to cost 'society' more than a guy who drives at 95 MPH five times a week or the guy who chugs 10 coffees before lunch everyday. Statistically you could find any numbers you were looking for with the right control group.
People's bodies are different as well - some can smoke a lot, and live to a ripe old age. Others will never smoke a day in their life and die to something else before 50 - was that because of a certain habit of theirs? Very possible - then again, maybe it wasn't.
So should their kids pay more in taxes because potentially their genetics will cost the healthcare system more?
You will - trust me.
www.waragainsttheweak.com
Heck, Basic Training in the Military could be considered 'higher risk for medical care' needed - or long term service once they are out and a Veteran. Same with Fire Personnel, Police..
Then we get into Sports: Football, Boxing - obviously a 'heightened' risk.
If you don't exercise right - it's well known it can cause more damage than good - so should we monitor people to see if they are exercising right - like in 1984?
Because by doing all this - that's what people are asking for.
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
What about the same for those who exercise too much, drive too fast, eat too much sugar, drink too much coffee, eat too many chips, eat not enough food, work too much, stare at a monitor too long, stay up too late, watch too much TV..
When should this list stop?
Many, many, many things can be considered 'bad for your health'. Heck, just about anything at all can be - with the right 'spin' applied.
It never will - like an avalanche, once it gets going.
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
Re: Re: Just Wondering
Woah, woah there. No - it's not backed by anything now. They dropped the 'gold standard' years ago.
The Federal Reserve *CORPORATION* just issues money as it pleases - more or less.
http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
Too many corporations count on this - along with other things.
Cure for Cancer? I bet the various 'cancer societies' would lobby against it.
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
Re: Re: Re:
*psst* Tell this dude to ditch his too:
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since
the days of Andrew Jackson."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882-1945), 32nd US President
November 21, 1933
Source: in a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House
On the post: Intuit Lobbying The Government To Make It More Difficult To File Your Tax Returns
On the post: Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement
Re: Re: So...
And no - if Wal-Mart ran the country, it's customer's would all be outsourced to China.
Funny, how people's memories seem to be so short. Wal-Mart's whole claim to fame and what made them a success was the concept of hiring US workers and providing US goods, it gave people a reason that Wal-Mart was 'different' and there was a good reason to shop - not anymore: Now they give US Workers as little as possible and provide Chinese goods. They can keep them.
On the post: Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement
What a GREAT IDEA!!
On the post: If School Officials Got Confused By Kid's Science Project, Why Does The Kid Need Counseling?
Speaking of which - why do we never hear about how politicians and other government officials need 'counseling'.
Would just the concept and overwhelming desire to stay in a position of power so long be considered 'mental instability'?
Seems to me, it's "Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder" or some variation of such.
On the post: Will Rupert Murdoch Pay Me For Making Money Off Links To Techdirt?
Re: True
What has Obama done since he's been in office - I'm talking 100% non-partisan here.
He's given money to big business
He's given money to wall street
He's given money to Bankers
How many small businesses got 'bail-outs'? Any?
GM sure did, so did FreddyMac and FannyMae.
On the post: Patents Being Used To Keep Starving Children From Getting Therapeutic Food Paste
Re: damn right i need my 70 years plus life of inventor money
YES be a fascist today
That would be 'Eugenics' - I'm sure with a smattering of Fascism, as they seem to go hand-in-hand.
www.waragainsttheweak.com
I think the official corporate stance would be: "As long at the quarterly balance sheets are in order, starving people don't matter."
Of course, eventually, you'll starve most of your consumers. In order for profits to perpetually rise you need a perpetually growing customer base.
But business thinks too short-term from that, and the contrary to all the moaning and groaning about 'today's economy' - I think we are feeling the effects of outsourcing now.
On the post: ACLU Looking To Challenge Homeland Security On Border Laptop Searches
On the post: NY Times Finds An 8-Year-Old On TSA Flight Watch List
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
Why does that make sense? But that's ok - Privacy's a thing of the past!
Did Mark Zuckerberg Steal the Code for Facebook?
Interesting - are we going to see another example of the Streisand Effect? lol
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
Don't ask, don't tell?
Depends on who's making the rules - and how they define 'wrong'.
What's so wrong with people's right to privacy? If they aren't doing anything wrong, then why is privacy an issue?
The statement "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear?" is wrong in itself - it doesn't adhere to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' - and history has clearly proven that concept to be vitally important to any free society.
Along with:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The people that came up with these concepts, came up with them for a reason; in a time when they clearly saw the worst parts of 'humanity'.
If we ignore the lessons of history; we are doomed to repeat them.
No so long ago; in the 30's - it was 'wrong' to belong to various racial and ethnic groups. Not just in Nazi Germany either - ask any black person who lived in the Southern Part of the U.S. during that time.
In those times there were some things considered 'wrong' by certain groups of people like:
Being a Jew.
Being a Christian.
Being a Gypsy.
Blacks sitting in the front of the bus.
Blacks going to white schools.
Blacks eating in White Restaurants.
In order to preserve our freedoms, we MUST insist upon all of them.
Give Tyrants an inch and they'll take your whole country. And yes, they do still exist.
On the post: Zuckerberg: People Are Comfortable Without Privacy, So We Threw Them All Over The Cliff
So let's all dig into his private life and post it online, shall we?
On the post: UK Agrees That ACTA Secrecy Is Not In The Public Interest
Didn't realize most 'industry organizations' and 'government' had anything to do with that anymore.
Now if it sais "the corporate interest" - I could see that.
On the post: The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet
That's enough for NetFlix and one of two other options 1-2 Blu-Rays a month or I can go to the pawn shop and get the older format DVD's for $2.00 a pop - which I usually do, the upconvertors do a good enough job to justify the 38/48 dollar savings per disc, IMHO.
If I do the NetFlix + Pawnshop route, I can watch about as many movies a month as I want to - and Blu-Ray along with the 'bad economy' is leaving *no shortage* of DVD's at the Pawn Shops, heh. (That's like 30 movies a month purchased and 15/20ish via NetFlix) - 30-45 movies a month is one a day or more - plenty to watch and I get to keep most of it.
Next >>