There's a profit, and then there's a huge profit.

I just don't see how if they're getting it for free, each person should pay $20 or more for it. That's basically it. I'd prefer my $20 went to the CDC for making it than the place that managed to get some.

Well even IF this were true, the stuff I listed eats up a good portion of that money in the end. Running a business is really a lot more expensive than most people realize. I would wager that applies doubly so in the case of medical facilities.

Sent in the paperwork to become a citizen. Now I play the waiting game for a few months.

Awesome!

Good luck, I know it's a lengthy process with lots of hoops.

Hopefully it won't have too many hoops. Just have to brush up on my US History. The first President was the dude with the cherry teeth, right?

Cherry teeth?

Poor cherry.

You think Day Of The Tentacle is a good study guide for US History? It taught me everything I know....

Simpsons and Family Guy might be good references as well.

Sweet! Better start doing my homework. *Turns on TV*

Wtf is this about? Is this legit?

Copyright treaty leaks

* * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability [emphasis added]. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

* * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

HYSTERIA!!! you must download and watch! TAKE NOTES! :D

Aawwwwww!I hope it goes smoothly.Didn't know ya weren't one.

(Pliming by Crackberry, close to drunk)

nswf (text)

you need fresh air


go outside, right now!

Didn't know you were married

*purells*

Currently of course none of this is verified but that is the sort of thing that happens when far far far far too many Americans refuse to see that Obama is not sent from the heavens. When far far far far too many media outlets refuse what is one of their most important duties to Question. Instead the media like a percentage of the public look at Obama as some sort of humble deity seeking only to aid all of mankind.

The original story was posted:

and


the story was not discussed and received more downvotes than upvotes. Why? Because it put Obama in a bad light.

Ask yourself how the public would have reacted if any past president was pushing a secret copyright treaty that he refused to allow the public to read because of "national security" reasons. Copyright treaties somehow have an effect on our national security!? And as posted to the second link above, if people seeing what sort of penalties would be implemented for alleged copyright violations, if somehow seeing what would be required if some kid downloaded a song increased the risk of America being attacked than why were so many people including civilian, private sector individuals allow to read it.

Yes, we need to see what is actually in the treaty and if would be enforceable, but the main point still exists, that too few question Obama and those who do are attacked or belittled.

In the very least it would/should have been discussed. Opinions on weather it was good, bad, bunk, or just a conspiracy would have been stated.

It's just f**king sad is what it is.

Get ready to wait for a couple of plus years, sir...

I sent in my paperwork in 1999, didn't actually get sworn in until 2003...

The backlog is huge!

I think it depends on where you file though. I talked to the immigration lawyer that helped my mom and I get our green cards, and he said that it takes about 4-5 months. So here's hoping....