The discussion seems to confuse "health care" and "health insurance", and leads to optimize for the wrong result: total individuals covered, not low cost and high quality. Even when regulation permits anything like a free-ish market in insurance policies, that has almost no bearing on cost of care. The typical consumer has health insurance, and the first question asked about a procedure is not "How much does it cost?" but "Is it covered?" The market is distorted.
This is what happens when Punk rockers fail to live fast and die young.
It's tough when your only cache is being young and edgy. It's hard to stay edgy when you've been a music idol for decades, and no one stays young.
No they didn't enter with guns blazing, but they were ready to. As you say, this was a "special squad", and they were sent out for ZERO logical reason. I don't know what warrant procedures are in the UK, but obviously there was no oversight or probable cause equivalent.
This is how people holding cell phones and kitchen knives get "accidentally" shot.
The whole gripe is related to the "Booklet Format" paper size, which is the apparently unique 12.25" x 9.25" paper folded and bound into a 6.125" x 9.25" booklet. The fact that this size is not used for ANY other purpose than Federal Court filings are the problem.
Hopefully, that clears up confusion regarding margins, centering, readability, grids, and standard document storage.
See, that's missing the point. The fact that there are byzantine rules in other courts does not make the Supreme Court's rules less byzantine. The grotesque cost of legal procedures does not justify adding on a mere "drop in the bucket" for unusual printing for no apparent reason. Courts operating in their own separate world that requires a printing company to "specialize in Supreme Court brief-printing" violates the egalitarian spirit that this country was founded on. If only a small legal class of people and a small legal class of businesses have access to the legal system, is it serving the nation and the citizens, or is that an indicator that it is drifting away from its purpose? Rules for the sake of usability, efficiency, and order are helpful. Rules for the sake of rules are not.
The government should serve the people. That's why we have representatives, not rulers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
Since you're presenting yourself as an expert on the nuanced usability of differing paper sizes, your credibility is based on how you present your knowledge of paper. You're talking about margins and eye tracking, and how that only works best on this one particular sheet size, and then you say "North American standard of A4".
Sorry, no such thing. A4 is European and International. "Letter" is North American. There is no North American A4, and arguing that they're the same is like saying that Indigo and Violet are the same. You lose credibility that way.
Depends on your definition of "real". Athens was the most directly democratic, but was limited to certain males. Direct democracy really breaks down for a lot of reasons in large groups. Representative democracy works better when small groups of people elect representatives than when large groups do.
Congress should not be some nameless Other. Congress is supposed to be US. It is our fault for allowing Congress to get away with it. Congress has the ultimate responsibility to set these statutory damages. Relying on the Executive and Judicial branches to do the work of Congress flies in the face of the original intent of the separated powers in the Constitution, and is one of the major roots of the convoluted mess that is our government. Yes, there are plenty of other structural problems, like the fact that laws are written by lobbyists and staff and congressmen just vote on them, and the enormous number of people that each Representative represents, but the fundamental blame lies with us.
We do not hold our politicians accountable. We do not run for office ourselves. We let politicians set punitive penalties for stupid crap like file sharing. We allow them to VOTE ON BILLS THEY HAVEN'T EVEN READ! We allow them to be politicians, not representatives. We ask the government to do so many things for us, so they tell us they're doing so many nice things and so few unconscionable things, and we're fine with that.
So, your HOA formed an association (republic) of independent agents (states) based on a charter (constitution) of limited scope (power). Over time the board (representatives), through good intentions, the idea that they knew better than everyone else, and good old-fashioned hunger for power, started regulating, prohibiting, and taxing things that the original group (framers) would have been shocked by.
Through my experiences with bureaucrats of every stripe, I have learned this lesson: Never underestimate the amount of power that can go to someone's head.
It's absolutely true that it's not easy to be successful writing. The hardest part is being *good* at writing.
My first experience with an "e-book" that was free and self-published informed my outlook on aspiring authors. I don't remember the author or the title, but it was about anarcho-capitalists in conflict with an incompetent federal government and a space vehicle launched from a semi-plausible maglev ramp. Despite the intriguing premise, it read like a political wish-fulfillment fantasy. It wasn't really that good overall, but it wasn't a waste of my time.
The reason I regret reading it was because of the author's attitude as he presented his work. He complained about not making money when he had tried to sell his book. He complained about pirates posting copies of his book on message boards. He sounded downright petulant when he explained that he was now offering it for free because it was being pirated anyway.
He did have other writing available for sale on his website, but between his attitude (CwF fail) and his lack of finesse in writing (RtB fail) I had no desire to part with my money to compensate him for what I had read or to buy additional stories.
Perhaps this author had the bad luck to be unskilled at his desired trade?
If you want to get a feel for the costs of physical books, look at public domain books. Retail prices on hardbacks can be as low as $10-$12. About half of that is the wholesale cost to the retailer, which is the printer's cost for manufacture, shipping, and profit. Without royalties to authors and publishers and without retail costs, that slab of beautiful dead tree *still* only costs about $6. A new release from a popular author in hardback will cost at least $25, list price. It probably has higher quality paper than the cheap public domain edition, but $13 wholesale minus $2 in upgraded raw material minus $6 base manufacture and distribution STILL only equals $5 FOR ALL THE PUBLISHER AND AUTHOR OVERHEAD! If your e-distributor is taking 30%, you, as a publisher, can make the SAME profit per copy on a $7 ebook as you can on a $25 hardback.
The idea that ebooks should cost anywhere near the same as a print book is beyond silly. The people who are buying them currently put a high premium on convenience. The market will decide how long that lasts, unless price-fixing, vendor lock-in, or rent-seeking legislation breaks the market.
I don't know the details of what makes a work a work for hire, but I know there is such a thing. This seems like the most obvious, common sense solution. The person who hired the artist and received the tattoo should the tattoo and all rights to it.
Tattoo artists should want it that way. If they don't, they'd be liable every time someone got a sport team tattooed on them.