Y2HH

The problem is you needed this vaccine months ago...getting it now won't help much, since by the time your body builds the necessary antibodies, you'll have probably contracted the very thing you were attempting to combat. And blaming drug companies for this is ridiculous. No, it's beyond that. If it wasn't for the private drug companies, most of the modern medications that exist...wouldn't exist, because the governments ability to "innovate" would have never produced them. And for every Viagra you know about because it's advertised in sports, there are hundreds of other breakthrough medications given daily at your local hospital that help people a lot more than their predecessor did. The very reason these medications exist is because of the private sector and the competition therein, and let's ignore the BILLIONS of R&D money each of these drug companies pours into this. Removing them from the equation will not suddenly fix the drug issues the world faces, nor will it suddenly spawn the perfect number of vaccines on time...oh, and it sure as hell wouldn't innovate anything...so all you'd end up with is a larger supply of old drugs and almost nothing new in the pipeline. Our government is only good at searching for answers or solutions AFTER the issue arises or the hard question is asked of them...which is too late. The biggest issue with the private/public and any other "sector" is in the "Trek" solution. Until the worlds drive to acquire wealth is curbed and completely eliminated, this is how the system works, and it works like this WORLDWIDE. The government doesn't do anything for free, either...the people who work for government get paid...the government itself as an entity gets paid, etc. Until the acquisition of wealth is removed from the equation, this is how it IS and how it will continue to be. Blaming people for working in and with the system is ridiculous, and governments don't have the answer to this problem, either. Nobody does things for free, because everything costs money. Eliminate the money factor and maybe...just maybe, we are on our way to a solution for all mankind.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 11:08 AM) Jailbreaking is one of the safest mods out there. There is no such thing as bricking an iPhone or iPod touch, thanks to DFU mode. If you jailbreak, no, but if you unlock, yes, you can ruin it and be unable to fix it.

The only time I recommend jailbreaking is if the device doesn't do what you require of it out of the box...for 99% of people, it does. Before SSH apps existed, jailbreaking it allowed you to use an SSH app, however, this is no longer the case. For people who insist on using emulators to play shoddily controlled NES or Sega games on their devices, jailbreaking is also the answer. Do note: emulator people don't actually play these games, they just like to show off at parties that "they can". The reason why is because those games really do require actual controllers, otherwise 50% of the devices screen real estate is taken up by overlay graphically implemented controls that never work quite the same. Now then... The 1% that need to tether their device to their laptop (for a modem), require jailbreaking, at least I get this part -- so long as it's an iPhone, if you're doing this to tether a Touch, which requires wireless, well then...you are stupid, and I need not elaborate as to why. Now then...0.5% of that 1% are merely software pirates that want to steal the things they use and or are entertained by, even if they can afford them, to assure that the person making it stops making it because they realize they can make more money working at McDonalds...fast forward 5 years and queue that same person b****ing and moaning about how good software is hard to come by these days and it's not like it used to be... Bottom line, jailbreak ONLY IF you find something you cannot otherwise do with the locked device...otherwise you're taking unnecessary risks for unnecessary reasons. Also, if you do insist on jailbreaking, don't just friviously install software for the hell of it...as it could contain information stealing code onto a device you probably have a bit of personal info on you don't want the world to have. Oh, and I agree with what Rock said above, I have multiple computers -- a lenovo laptop, a dell laptop, another dell laptop, a workstation and an iMac...and the iMac is the best "PC" or "Mac" I own, or have ever owned.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 08:35 AM) Reagan wrote that play over twenty years ago, why is it so hard to follow? And that was over 20 years ago...I thought things were supposed to be different now?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2009 -> 08:15 AM) So what are you going to tell the people who lose their lives here? We don't like to talk about that. Focus on the positive, ignoring any negatives that positive might create. Didn't you get the memo?

QUOTE (Princess Dye @ Oct 13, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) It's always a mystery to me how a Carlos Quentin hits .235 and never takes any heat for it on these boards. Meanwhile the 25th man plays like a 25th man, and he's the butt of every joke. Guy 1 didnt do what he was expected to do, Guy 2 produces what you'd expect in what for the most part was a low stakes role. Now if Wise played too much, that is Ozzie's fault. Or KWs for not restocking the outfield last offseason (and then spending tons of future dollars midyear once enough crap teams had beaten us). But all the hate goes towards Wise for pretty much being what he is. It happens each year it seems with all the different 25th men, Timo, etc. What are people here expecting? There are not enough great players to have each team feature this great hitting/fielding 25th man. Carlos doesn't get a free pass around here...and he was injured, played only 99 games, and still hit 21HR with 56RBIs on what was an absolutely TERRIBLE year. Those are numbers Wise won't get in his absolute BEST year, while uninjured. 25th man in theory, he played so much you can't honestly consider him a 25th man...he was more like a 10th man...and he sucks.

Jenks weight was fine when he was 24 years old in 2005, but he's going on 29 now, and while that's still young, for a person carrying around that kind of weight year after year, it wears on you fast. I can tell you that how I felt at 24 and 29 were vastly different...I was able to work out all day, party all night, sleep for 2 hours and be 100% at 24. At 29...not so much, and I wasn't carrying around that much weight, as I'm 160lbs now.

Final score made it look closer than it actually was.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 11:11 AM) Rio's murder rate makes Chicago look like a hippie commune. I don't live there, so that means a load of nothing in my life.

QUOTE (G&T @ Sep 30, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) That's the question in my mind. Did he go because he thinks he can change voter's minds, or did he go because he knows their minds are made up? I think they've made up their minds and picked Chicago, no way they'd let Obama go there only to have them say, "LOL, sucker...we're picking Rio!". Obama is a star right now, for better or worse (depending on who you are), not only to Americans, but to the entire world...and they're capitalizing on that. I thought from the start the only way Chicago had a chance was for Obama to win the presidency, which he did. I just couldn't see them picking a city with massive traffic congestion issues that never get fixed and a soaring major crime/murder rate without some push from a very powerful figure...like a US President from Chicago.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) Hahahahaha Nobody gets it but us. Either that, or it wasn't funny.

If you've ever played World of Warcraft, you may find this funny... http://tinyurl.com/maz8tx

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) It's not just the uninsured who are unhappy with their current health care situation. It's an awful lot of the insured too. And it would be even more if they actually had an understanding of how much of their salary was actually going to pay for health care costs under the current system as well. While true, I'd still maintain that you are speaking of a minority, not a majority who are unhappy. And I don't see it being any cheaper, which is the biggest problem I have...nothing we do is cheap...why do people insist that this one single thing will be? WHY?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) The reason there is so much yelling about healthcare is that for MOST people, the current state is not good. You are among the fortunate few. Also, under the NSS Plantm, you wouldn't lose anything you currently have. Actually, that's not right. Most people ARE happy with what they have, a vast majority in fact. It's a minority that are in need...so let's stop spreading that lie. 330M Americans -- and only 40/50M are uninsured or in need of better alternatives. That simply doesn't add up to MOST.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) The reason there is so much yelling about healthcare is that for MOST people, the current state is not good. You are among the fortunate few. Also, under the NSS Plantm, you wouldn't lose anything you currently have. I would if it no longer existed. Just because I don't have to participate/leave what I have, doesn't mean what I have will/would still exist...and I can tell you as a person who works in the industry, it would not still exist as it does now. So yes...I would in fact lose what I have. Tricksy language may work on the masses, but I'll call you on it...and I call Obama on using it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) Most don't, and even if they offer a couple or three plans, they are with the same provider. That isn't really choice or competition of any kind. While that's fine for you and others, I'm perfectly happy with what I have and what I've had in the past. And therein lies the rub...in order to make you happy, we have to take away what I currently have/like having and that, in turn, makes me the sad one. I offer no solution...because to me, there is no problem. It's a pretty complicated issue, so I won't pretend to have the answers...all I know is I like what I have, and because you don't like what you have, I'm going to lose what I have...so you suck.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) I can't speak for anyone else, but the last 4 jobs I had, all provided multiple choices in health insurance, from HMO, to PPO...and aside from my consulting days when I was out on my own, I've never once worked for a company that didn't provide it. :/ To reply to my own thread -- this is also probably why I don't have ill will toward insurance...I've never had a problem with it, and every job I've had provided it...so it's kind of an out of sight out of mind thing to me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 11:03 AM) But herein lies one of the major problems with the current setup. If you are lucky enough to have an employer that even provides it, you generally have only one choice for a plan. You can indeed opt out, but then you have to pay many times over as much for someone else, partially because of losing the company pay-in, but also because the insurance companies charge higher rates for non-group policies. This is why I've said that ultimately, the best situation is to have health insurance not be tied to employers. I can't speak for anyone else, but the last 4 jobs I had, all provided multiple choices in health insurance, from HMO, to PPO...and aside from my consulting days when I was out on my own, I've never once worked for a company that didn't provide it. :/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) You have the right to leave the insurance company? Seriously? The only way I could leave my current insurance is to quit my job. Yeah, that's self-determination. You can opt out of paying for company provided insurance...they can't force it upon you. I work for Blue Cross and even I can opt out.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 5, 2009 -> 08:27 PM) You talk about a piece of s*** article full of fear mongering, lies, and half truths... gees. That's not possible, only neo-cons fear monger, lie and tell half truths. Didn't you get the memo?

Not to mention the guys in 300 were all air brushed and graphically "enhanced"...none of them were/are that cut or that big in real life, and never will be.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) Car insurance is required. Is that constitutionally legal? Health care, like driving, is a legal privilege, not a legal right. No, car insurance is not required unless you want to drive. I don't HAVE to drive, so I don't HAVE to have car insurance. What you are proposing is that even if I don't want health insurance, I have to buy it...that's like saying even though you don't drive you have to have car insurance... I've heard this being discussed by constitution lawyers, and from what I've heard, it's not legal. I haven't read up enough to know one way or the other, but even I have to say, it's iffy sounding.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) --Health insurance should be REQUIRED for all US citizens and residents. I'll have to read the rest of your post more carefully, because it sounds like something we can actually begin to agree on, but to your above point, I'm not sure that's constitutionally legal.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) And all this happened without universal health insurance? Yes, because it has nothing to do with Chinese workers assembling iPhones for 2$ a day + free cokes and moonpies.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) Because it will be cheaper for them, result in higher stock prices and bigger profits. Its the same reason companies dump superior American workers and send jobs out of the country. I don't know why others can't seem to understand this. I've seen a mass exodus of IT jobs to crappy Indian alternatives, regardless of inferior support or products, the bottom line is it saves money. For example: Designed by Apple in Cupertino California -- Assembled in China. Gee, I wonder why they assemble their stuff in China. Oh, that's right, they don't have to offer healthcare, high wages, or any other benefit.