Slashdot Mirror

Nuclear power does not prevent deaths. Not a single one. In fact, it causes quite a few deaths. It is just plain wrong to attribute lives saved by not burning coal to nuclear power.

However, that does not mean that the 0.04 people assumed to die per terawatthour of nuclearly produced electricity isn't the lowest of all possible sources of power, as this less propagandaish source states:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Or this one:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

And it also doesn't mean that switching to more nuclear power would continue this trend. Furthermore, it does not mean that all fossil plants/mining cause that many deaths.

This is bullshit territory.

The fuck are you talking about? What would you call this, for example?

The TSA says they are all about the war on terror.
But their actions prove they are only interested in conducting a War on Diginity.

Groping children
soaking a man in his own urine
Arresting people for wearing watches with exposed gears
Arbitrary strip-searches
Detaining people armed with flash cards
Forcing mothers to drink their own breast milk
Forcing a woman to remove her nipple ring with pliers
Requiring women to remove their bras
Requiring a woman to remove the brace on her sprained ankle and then making her walk on it to prove it was sprained

The list of abuses is into the thousands. Every once in a while they get a taste of their stupidity. But it isn't anywhere near enough.

You use a Socratic relativistic argument, about how evil has no definition and is a relative term, and then use an analogy about "slaughtering kittens" -- to prelude into another logical fallacy that you did employ (despite your checking) -- Reductio ad absurdum, demonstrated in your statement " Since slaughtering kittens is generally seen as evil I can only conclude that terminating Reader is the same as killing kittens. "

The context of the original Google "Don't be Evil" informal logo was based around the technical community. No one ever assumed Google would be faced with a situation where killing kittens would be economical, that's simply absurd. What they did assume is that Google would be faced with numerous situations where it had to choose profit or values, and that in those situations, values should be chosen. This is what drove Google's behavior in China -- threatening to leave the country altogether due to free speech restrictions -- and constantly fighting the Chinese government on censorship. Using scenarios like these as a critical lens for the "Don't be Evil" motto -- it's hard to see your remarks as having much bearing, as you are taking what human society considers evil (killing helpless animals for example) and trying to align that with the policy. However, that was never the intent of the phrase or how it was generally understood.

Logical fallacy in your argument here: (Semantic) Slippery Slope.

In the end, I have to appeal to you to "get real" about this as it seems like you are defending Google for the sake of defending Google. Regardless of the "appeal to authority" fallacy you claim to demonstrate, sometimes, it's just plain common sense. Forbes published an article about the "Don't be Evil" value vanishing slowly four days ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/03/26/is-larry-page-somehow-corrupting-googles-philosophy-dont-be-evil/?ss=game-changers/ . So, that's an edited, mainstream magazine site (Forbes) describing this phenomenon as well. How many sources do you need to see before you start to notice a trend?

I can also assure you this is a matter of opinion, not scientific fact. No scientific method or experimentation can determine if something is or is not evil, because it's a relativistic determination. However, it seems as though the tide of opinion in the tech community is beginning to turn around and not look at Google as a darling defender of values and principles anymore. And with the loss of that esteem for Google, so goes the original intent of the "Don't be Evil" logo -- to (judiciously) put values before profit.

Forbes seems to think so. Honestly, just googling for 'Real Wages Drop' brings up more proof than you could ever need/want....

As for individuals, well, in the middle ages every now and then a Knight might make it to vasslehood, but it wasn't the norm.

No. There's not a substantial market for it. The market is for things that make it _easier_ for people to post every last second of their lives online (Facebook, Twitter, Vine, Instragram, Youtube, etc). The vast majority of the public will see encryption or anything else that interferes with instant narcissism as broken.

Amazon says "No." There is a growing market for dashboard cameras. And they're cheap. Really cheap. Forbes even published an article last month suggesting that they may become mandatory on new cars. As far as people posting "every last second of their lives online." You should really google "russian dash camera". They love posting those things online. It's quite the rage right now. No sir, you are dead wrong.

The market is very much alive and growing fast. And nowhere is "instant narcissism" listed in the reasons people are buying them. Security. Safety. Documenting scams people try to pull (Drive a nice car? Got nice insurance. Target for a personal injury scam). Documenting the police "No officer, I wasn't speeding, and this GPS-enabled dash cam proves it." The only "instant narcissism" I see is from a jaded troll on slashdot going for extra karma by dragging in a favorite scratching post for the slashkiddies: Hipsters. And hey, while I appreciate the sentiment, you're just flat wrong here.

they can sell if Oracle prices it right,

The right price for Oracle translates in whatever it takes for Larry to buy another island

A slashdot friendly answer to silly magazine restrictions (annoying ad before article view):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

It is the most safety conscious place on Earth.

Except when it comes to nuclear power plants.

No, that's definitely including nuclear power plants. When you look at the number of deaths vs. energy provided, turns out nuclear is the safest technology there is, beating wind, solar, and hydro.

"The definition of the jurisdiction of publication is not where it was published, but where it was read." - Tim Worstall

Worstall has an interesting blog post on Forbes, explaining the implications of the UK's new libel laws, brought in upon the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry. In particular, he points out that under UK law, publication happens where the article is read. It doesn't matter where your printing press, news station or internet servers are. Foreign websites could be sued for libellous for material "published" in the UK, on computer monitors and smart phones. This appears to be the line the French courts are taking.

The British Government Has Decided To Censor The Entire World's Press And Media

Yes, Solyndra would have totally failed if some Chinese committee member decided to subsidise it because Chinese already have plenty of alternative energy equipment manufacturers that do it much cheaper than Solyndra could (by more than an order of magnitude), that's why Solyndra never stood a chance.

What the hell is Gore's CO2 market?

Chinese mass produce every level of quality, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, I am providing retail chains in different parts of the world with supply chain management solutions among other things, and there are products that are exported out of China in different price categories and different quality categories for different markets. Everything, from very expensive perfume and cosmetics to machinery, luxury items of all types have production facilities in China (Burberry, Louis Vuitton, D&G, Prada, Armani, Bally, and more).

Unless you've been asleep at the wheel or you don't count Apple's products as high quality, then China makes that too.

Forbes shows that the oil and gas industry received $4.5 billion in subsidies for 2010 despite being the most profitable industry in the United States.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

This also does not include the amount of money the US military spends in securing oil pipeline and fields in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. If you include the war expenditure for securing supplies and also the current naval protection offered for oil tankers traveling the oceans, you will find that oil companies are receiving trillions of dollars of subsidies in the form of externalities which they freeloading off of the federal government.

Alarmist?

Take your average person. Let's choose a female person. This female person knows that people are looking at her, every day. In fact, most females go to great lengths to appear to people as they WISH to appear. Tons of money are spent on wardrobe, makeup, hair, beauty aids, so that she DOES appear as she wishes to appear. In short - the lady likes to be looked at, and goes to great lengths to ensure that she is pleasing to the looker.

Does that mean that she wants peeping toms looking in through her living room windows? Oh - that may not be to bad. She is clothed in the living room, and usually interacting with other people anyway.

How about her bedroom, or the bathroom?

Doesn't much matter how social a person you are - that goes beyond creepy. That goes beyond simple distaste. Yet, corporations are tracking you ALL THE TIME. Yes, they are in your bathroom. They are in your bedroom. People who make no attempt to block tracking at all, using credit cards for all purchases, are telling corporations every time they wipe their nether regions. What kind of soaps they prefer. Whether they use talc, and how much. Whether you're sexually active, and whether you're trying to prevent pregnancy.

The corporations can learn of your (underage or not) daughter's pregnancy before YOU know about it!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

How do you internalize a cost when you can't identify the cost?

We know that air pollution costs up to $1,600 per person annually in respiratory problems. We also know that the cost of climate change is estimated at around $20 per ton of CO2. Therefore, the costs can be identified and quantified.

Fukushima's problem was caused by flooding in the basement where diesel generators were.

Not according to Kirk Sorensen, a nuclear technologist who operates the site energyfromthorium.com who for Forbes wrote the article Explainer: What Caused The Incident At Fukushima-Daiichi. At first he writes "The tsunami destroyed the diesel generators that provide power to drive the pumps that circulate the water coolant through the reactor that removes decay heat." But a bit later he writes generators ran "until their day tanks emptied" of diesel fuel. If emergency generators were running then they could have been refueled. The hard part would of been finding the people who were willing to put their lives at risk. However anyone who supports nuclear power should be so willing, if they aren't willing to put their own lives at risk why do they support putting other people's lives at risk?

All of the mentioned things could potentially cause enough problems in nuclear plants, but they would need to huge (like >7.75 magnitude earthquake *directly* under the reactor)

The title of the article Earthquake threat to nuclear reactors far higher than realized sums it up pretty well. Risk from earthquake is up to 24 tymes higher than previously thought.

people should be smart enough to shutdown the reactor & do other preparations in time as hurricanes can be detected way earlier than tsunamis/earthquakes.

And what of tornadoes? They aren't as predicable as hurricanes. And at specific points they strike they are more powerful than hurricanes.

The biggest reason I oppose nuclear power though is because nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

If all energy subsidies were dropped, including for fossil fuels and nuclear power then geothermal, solar, wind, and other clean(er) energy sources would be more cost competitive. Coal get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies. Without government loan guaranties Wall Street would not finance nuclear power. And if fossil fuels had to pay all of it's costs, instead of passing on external cost to others, their cost would be higher.

Falcon

If you do a lot of travelling, you will find that GPS laws are different everywhere.

This has nothing to do with GPS. After the US accused China of cyber attacks, it just retaliated against the biggest US conglomerates they could go after.

China did something similar to Carrefour after the French President officially received the Dali Lama. Of course, everybody knows that Carrefour had nothing to do with the Dali Lama's visit, but that wasn't the point. The point was to put the French chain store under siege everywhere it was located in China, so that the French corporation and the related French unions would in turn put the screws to the French President.

Also, it doesn't hurt that a corporation like Coca Cola (and other corporations in the same category) couldn't care less about cyber attacks against US-based technology companies or US-based media companies, but care deeply about being in China's market. So by targeting such companies and accusing them of espionage (a pretty serious allegation if you ask me), they're effectively pitting the lobbyists of those major consumer goods companies against the lobbyists of the major technology/media companies.

It depends on how you look at the ongoing data situation.
Can you get physical access to the site - just once?. Laptops, computers, code, admins change all the time and are getting smarter with more security options/work loads.
Spy-Pi using a Raspberry Pi Model B would allow for a secure way out for any data obtained via a network that can be updated remotely.
This might be better long term as the main OS, any thin clients, boxes, web 2.0, cloud devices, printers, laptops might be kept ~100% clean over time.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/01/27/darpa-funded-hackers-tiny-50-spy-computer-hides-in-offices-drops-from-drones/
is a more easy to understand idea - you "drop" a small computer in to hack from vs trying to "own" an onsite computer over time.
In this paper the " Raspberry Pi " is used vs say a PogoPlug mini-computer.
The other neat part about a Pi is you have less info on who planted it if its found. A quality custom made PCB points to a more expensive hackers, state funding, other commercial interests.
A Raspberry Pi with average code keeps the target guessing for a just a while longer.

This is a better write-up on Mailbox, and why it is indeed a very good mail application.

Seems like perhaps the Mailbox folks realize this is the absolute top for this simple, albeit, well designed application, and jumped at a chance to sell.

It's perfectly reasonable for charity workers to be paid reasonable salaries. It's unreasonable for them to be paid unreasonable ones. The American Red Cross got a lot of flack a few years ago because of the high salary it paid Marsha Evans. Other charities were unfairly accused of doing the same thing but it turned out those claims were exaggerated.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_charities_salaries.htm

If you do donate to a charity, make sure it's an efficient one that serves the cause and not the office holders:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/23/charities-most-efficient-personal-finance-charity-09-efficiency_slide_2.html

My 2c on old PCs: Yes, I have lots, but really they are practically worthless. Recipients would do better with a cheap modern netbook than they would a hulking power-guzzling iron monster. Like a story I read about how people donating their old books to libraries: "People can't bare to throw out their old books, so they donate them to us (libraries), and we throw them out for them."

It's sad to see an Inspector General get on a politicized soap box and yell "the sky is falling!" The Obama administration has gone out of its way to have every cabinet member and in fact everybody down the food chain or should I say "feeding trough" also echo a bunch of FUD over the sequestration. Just like our retarded Homeland Security Chief Napolitano, a bigger political idiot I'd be challenged to find on this planet! Wasn't it her program of "If you see something, say something?" Hey Janet, "you're a retard and a hypocrite because on one hand you tell us that because of sequestration the TSA will have to cut back and we'll have longer waits at the airport and yet you spend another $50M you didn't need toright after announcing that!" Sorry for ranting.

In the private sector, every manager usually has a few goals established that are boilerplate but still applicable.. One of them is "Reduce Costs by x%" usually x is 10. All of us in this economy has had to cut back and it's time for the US Government to stop spending every dollar they take in and a third more. $900B deficits are killing us now and will only get worse, it has to stop.

If you look at the data for NASA the current budget while it is less than they've spent under Continuing Resolutions but in FY2009 (The last year a budget was passed by Congress) Their budget was $17,782B. in 2010 and 2011 they were allowed to spend $18,724B and $18,448B respectively. That's pretty hefty in terms of spending increases and let's not forget they were still flying the Space Shuttles during those fiscal years! It was hella expensive to launch a shuttle and it has been a drain on NASA's budget for decades. By some estimates $192B over the life of the Shuttles.
Now the IG is whining that the budget is going to cause problems? I'd submit that after the Shuttle program ended that the budget should have gone down. But no, it's now down by their latest projection for FY2012 (the current budget year) $17,770B roughly the same as in FY2009!?!? Assuming 4 launches launches per year (FY2010) @ $1.5B/launch that's $6B just for not flying the Shuttle, but yet the budget didn't go down. Granted only two shuttles flew in FY2011, I'd still submit that's $3B that went to something "else."
What ever "else" is they need to just stop doing that because it came into fruition over the last year.

This is a very very poor set of arguments from an official who is supposed to be independent and the watchdog for the American People and he's not doing his job by echoing the same BS and FUD that the administration has pushed out since February. They have eliminated the Shuttle, reducing expenses of $6B/year and they want more money? What every they're smoking they need to share it with the rest of us!

This kind of attitude clearly points out why there's such a huge vacuum of leadership in DC. From Congress to the White House, it's time to vote them all out of office, but first fire this IG!

To quote Hunter S. Thompson, Fuck the Pope. Here's stuff that matters: Billionaire Investors Gobble Up Twinkies: Hostess Snacks Sold For $410 Million. Ding Dong prices on the up OMG!

Its a common straw man argument, pretending this is about lightly clad women. It isn't. That's fine. The problem is when women are portrayed constantly as mere objects. Take a look: Sexist Modern Ad Examples and Sexist Superbowl Ads. The point you both are missing is that constant sexism has an impact on society, and Europe wants to address that impact. That the sexism itself IS the cause of some societal problems, rather than a mere symptom. It is both a symptom and a cause.

When I first heard of 3d printing I was really impressed and thought of lots of practical applications for this new tech but for some reason I never thought of weapons. Once I heard of that I thought that this crosses a line. I certainly don't want it where someone can just go home and print a gun.

In the US, anybody can legally just go home and build a gun -- but of course it takes time to get the skills, most people would rather spend money than time, so they buy one instead. In other parts of the world, or for certain types of gun, that's illegal, but still very possible, and yet few people bother. Few people bother, even when it is legal, so why do you think they will just because a 3D printer is involved? For the most part, people who want guns already buy them (legally or black market), while people who don't want them won't buy or print them, because they don't want one!

And then I read about ammo being printed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

Understand that that's not ammo, that's a device to feed ammo. You still have to buy your ammo at the local Walmart, and if you live somewhere building your own gun is prohibited, I'd expect ammo sales are restricted as well. (If not, shouldn't it be?)

This is the first time a new tech that could very well become commonplace in the home has given me pause.

First new tech, in your short lifetime, sure! But do very old techs, such as hand drills and files, also give you pause? Because people make guns with those all the time. And it doesn't take near as much skilled work as you might think.

And short of making 3d printers illegal, what could be done even if desired?

Well, the same thing they did about the drills and files -- pass laws restricting what sort of weapons you can make, and arrest anyone you catch breaking them!

I've read numerous slashdot posts on freedom to do what someone wants with hardware they have bought, or hacking the device to expand its capabilities or do something with it that wasn't intended. I'm not much of a tinkerer myself but I always agreed with freedom to do whatever you want with what you own. So how do people feel about this? How could it possibly be prevented?

This isn't even a hack; instead of print these parts it's simply print these which so happen to assemble into a firearm.

When I first heard of 3d printing I was really impressed and thought of lots of practical applications for this new tech but for some reason I never thought of weapons. Once I heard of that I thought that this crosses a line. I certainly don't want it where someone can just go home and print a gun. And then I read about ammo being printed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/01/14/gunsmiths-3d-print-high-capacity-ammo-clips-to-thwart-proposed-gun-laws/

This is the first time a new tech that could very well become commonplace in the home has given me pause.

And short of making 3d printers illegal, what could be done even if desired?

Oh, malarkey - you're letting your biases and paranoia override your ability to reason.

You won't be able to buy disks for them

Sony has invested entirely too much in BluRay technology to not include an optical drive on the PS4. Not to mention, "It plays BluRays!" was a major selling point for a lot of people who bought PS3 systems, myself included.

all the games will be download only, require online access all the time

Making the consoles "online DLC only" would severely limit their ability to sell consoles - I know this might be hard to fathom, but the entire world population does not necessarily have access to always-on broadband internet. While you may not realize this, I assure you the marketing drones at Sony and Microsoft very much do.

and no, you can't sell them

Sony has already confirmed that the PS4 will work with used games.

all your movies and music will be streamed, and no, you can't keep them or transfer to other devices to watch/listen to them.

Right, because somehow this device is going to magically alter all my existing movie and music files, move them to a remote server, and delete them from my local storage device.

Oh, wait, you probably meant the content that they will allow you to rent through the device, right? Yea, FYI, stuff you rent isn't "your" stuff. Don't believe me? Trash your apartment, then tell your landlord you won't pay to fix it because it's "your" apartment. Hope you enjoy homelessness.

But you will be allowed to buy install credits, 500cr at time for $100, but the games will be 510cr, so you have to buy two credit packs, and just like a strip joint, wont let you cash out the funny money for real dollars when you leave.

Microsoft already does that with their current generation console.

And you cant get a refund if the game is crap or doesnt work as advertised.

Again, that already occurs, not a new concept.

China is about to have an epic crash when their real estate bubble bursts

A different view, published a week after your CBSNews report:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/03/11/chinas-non-bubble-housing-bubble/

"By comparison, China’s housing bubble is a non-bubble... There’s also nothing close to a mortgage backed securities bubble and no sub-prime lending...'You don’t see the same amount of bank stress that you see in the U.S. because the debt levels are significantly lower, both for the builders and for the buyers'."

The CIA actually run a prediction market for a while until public outcry caused them to shut it down.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/04/20/cia-investors-aim-to-build-a-pseudo-gambling-market-for-data-security-predictions/

The CIA has long been intrigued by the intelligence potential of prediction markets. A 2006 paper the agency published cited examples like betting markets that predict election outcomes more accurately than polls, and orange juice future markets that predict weather better than meteorological organizations. It also pointed to the use of prediction markets within corporations like Google and Eli Lilly, which have sometimes skirted gambling laws by supplying their employees with âoeinvestment fundsâ and given them an opportunity to make wagers based on their knowledge.

The Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) even launched its own prediction market known as FutureMAP for intelligence purposes in 2001, though the program was canceled for political reasons in 2003. As the CIAâ(TM)s paper notes, Senators Byron Dorgan and Ron Wyden called such experiments âoeterrorism betting parlors,â and argued that âoespending millions of dollars on some kind of fantasy league terror game is absurd and, frankly, ought to make every American angry.â

What's interesting is that prediction markets seem to have advantages over opinion polls. E.g.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff88.html

In an article in support of rational markets, Mark Rubinstein relates this story:

"At 3:15 p.m. on May 27, 1968, the submarine USS Scorpion was officially declared missing with all 99 men aboard. She was somewhere within a 20-mile-wide circle in the Atlantic, far below implosion depth. Five months later, after extensive search efforts, her location within that circle was still undetermined. John Craven, the Navy's top deep-water scientist, had all but given up. As a last gasp, he asked a group of submarine and salvage experts to bet on the probabilities of different scenarios that could have occurred. Averaging their responses, he pinpointed the exact location (within 220 yards) where the missing sub was found."

James Surowiecki in his book The Wisdom of Crowds tells the story of the game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" in which a contestant could ask an expert for help with a question or ask the audience. The experts were right 65 percent of the time, and the audience was right 91 percent of the time.

Jude Wanniski related a story told to him by Jack Treynor, a finance guru. Treynor had his class guess the number of jelly beans in a jar holding 850 beans. The average guess was within 3 percent of the total. Wanniski, by the way, correctly realized that this supported the efficiency of financial markets. He also, in my opinion incorrectly, construed this as proof of the efficiency of political markets, an opinion he expanded upon in The Way the World Works.

Prediction markets in general perform exceedingly well compared to individual forecasts. In his article on prediction markets, Philip O'Connor writes: "In fact, studies of prediction markets have found that the market price does a better job of predicting future events than all but a tiny percentage of individual guesses. The analysis below of the Virtual Super 12 shows the average selection, an average or constructed market price, to be better than 99% of participants' selections."

He continues: "A short list of other evidence includes the following:

Markets that predict elections have been shown to outperform the predictions of opinion polls.

Prediction markets on movie box-office receipts and more obscure events have been shown to correspond closely with actual outcomes.

Thanks for the link on the race versus socioeconomic status. I'm skimming it now. It specifically examines educational level, which cut the gap significantly with . Which is helpful, but doesn't eliminate the issues, although they mention other studies which break it down further but still don't fully eliminate it. My initial data already struggled with the fact that life expectancy by ethnicity in japan wasn't readily available. Getting educational attainment or other income factors by ethnicity and correlating it would be harder still. There are some real differences in genetic health issues, such as sickle-cell anemia, between racial groups so I wouldn't expect race correlations to disappear entirely. It is useful to check how much of the US's overall performance is due to having a less homogenous population. It's possible that your data on relative wealth is accurate, but that the poorest 10% in the US still do better than the poorest 10% in Japan.

The link on "differs from country to country" had a reasonable argument that life expectancy isn't closely tied to the quality of the medical system. There is further argument at Forbes, which also points out that examining outcomes at point of intervention is helpful to the US numbers. OTOH, it's impossible to say if the US is just catching it earlier on average, and also how wide the tails are on the distribution even if our average is better. Life expectancy may just be the best of a set of bad options.

In no way is my argument by types of cause of death nonsense. The further along you get, the more closely aligned causes of death are to medical causes, although not necessarily medical care. (Sudden fatal hear attack, DOA at hospital is a medical cause, but not tied to the healthcare system) And if you check life expectancy at 45, the US starts moving up the ranks. It tops out at rank 12 around age 80 . I did overstate the chart I linked. All accidents were collected into a single entry for each age group, but medical conditions were broken out, and it was only the top 10 causes so many deaths were left out of each age group.

How are "we" (yes I am a doctor" colluding with the government? The government programs - medicare/medicaid pay pennies on the dollar.

The AMA limits the supply of doctors by controlling the "standards".

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

Some reporting has suggested that one of the early anti-abortion pushes was doctors trying to eliminate the competition (midwives, moon-tea peddlers) and increase demand for their services (live birth = more medical care than an abortion):

http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/history-of-abortion/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/a/abortion.htm

There are two excuses for you not knowing this
1) willful ignorance
2) you're not an AMA-trained doctor

Hello,

Were those the Political Opinions of America calls? If so, that's apparently a modified "boiler room" type scam where the goal is to get you to purchase a "free cruise" of the Bahamas out of Florida If you take them up on the offer, apparently you get stuck on a ferry and receive a bunch of high-pressure sales tactics to buy into a time share. Here are a couple of blog entries I wrote about them:

• Close call with a Caribbean cruise line scam
• Press One if by LAN, Two if by Sea

If you were the victim of such a scam, you might want to get in touch with this law firm who is looking into it.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Today, Holder testified before the Senate: "US Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill today, and discussed the lack of criminal cases against financial institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis." -- Forbes magazine online

Contrast this with Aaron Swartz. A soft target. It's unclear how much, if any, of a net cost he imposed with his illegal downloads of journal articles. "Illegal Downloads Of Journal Articles." It even sounds trivial. And they hounded him for it. To death. They presented the credible possibility of decades in jail to him.

But, as always, follow the money. Wall Streets spends a tremendous amount of money on federal politicians so they can keep running their swindles and funnel part of the proceeds back to Washington. Swartz was paying little if anything to the politicians as he was trying to provide information to the public at no personal gain.

To understand what's going on here, you have to understand politicians: "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -- Thomas Sowell

Even Zuckerberg's sister didn't know how to properly use the privacy settings, and she used to work there.

Google explains how its invention can be used to milk more money from advertisers by identifying lactating Moms, which might make some uneasy

How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did.

All in all, that technology isn't all that surprising to me....

If knowing when chicks no longer need birth control is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Google explains how its invention can be used to milk more money from advertisers by identifying lactating Moms, which might make some uneasy

How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did.

All in all, that technology isn't all that surprising to me....

Running a real company or a real government requires dealing with people who don't want to be there. Not everybody wants a career, some people just want jobs. They want to punch the clock and go home. Some people steal habitually from the till. Had I my druthers, I'd spend all day at home reading, and I'm considered a sociopathic workaholic. Some people are going to cheat. Some people are going to lie on their interviews. The test of any organization isn't how it does when it's doing well, it's how it does when its under extreme stress. Valve hasn't been under extreme stress, so the question of the effectiveness of their organization is effectively mooted. We can look to other game companies with strong egos (Origin for example, or Ion Storm) and get a good idea, though.

Breakdown of Nokia smartphone sales, last quarter of 2012:

*2.2m Symbian OS
*4.4m WP 7 + WP 8
*9.3m S40 full touch
total: 15.9m smartphones [1]
Windows Phone (7 and 8) makes up about a quarter of their total smartphone sales. The last quarter of 2011, they sold 19.6m smartphones, and the last quarter of 2010 28.3m, I can't see how 4.4m WP can max out their industrial capacity.

The future's NOT in applications, but instead, data... BIG data of nearly ALL kinds!

* "The future, is now..."

APK

P.S.=> For ANY "doubting Thomas'" here as well?

Try *think* about 1 thing - how data is OFTEN used against you!

This is nothing new either, since a simple rumor can send the stockmarket "flying" in ANY direction "the powers that be" choose, simply by using the "right mouthpiece" saying he has the 'data' that backs him up!

You NEED HIM TO BE AN "EXPERT"? Hey, no problem - buy his way onto the NY Times "best seller" lists too -> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/02/22/heres-how-you-buy-your-way-onto-the-new-york-times-bestsellers-list/

(See folks? It's ALL DATA TO BE MANIPULATED, or even CREATED artificially, & any way you like, to get the RESULT expected!)

It's also amazing how easily statistics are "bent" in samplesets to do it, especially ones you PAID for in paid studies & "4/5 dentists chew trident" when they're on your HMO's payroll & you SENT them crates of the stuff to chew too!

(So watch yourselves on that account too, as far as 'data' goes - after all, it's how the 'great depression' was initiated by bankers via using JP Morgan the financier's words to do it, & recently done as an experiment, yet again on APPLE stocks -> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/doug-kass-shows-how-easy-it-manipulate-shares-apple ))...

... apk

Simply put, customers already are voting with their wallets.

How's that working out for you?

True, good point, I should have been more careful in the graph I selected. Here's a better graph. I was mainly trying to show that US manufacturing hasn't been destroyed, and is still doing things.

What I find amusing, as accurate as your rant is, is how much money has been printed/borrowed and stolen in the last 4 years. It is mind boggling what has been going on and every time its mentioned the person mentioning it is labeled a racist.

Everyone SHOULD know about the stimilus being a union hand out to fund the DNC elections. However the EPA has a "sue and settle" scam going on and they have recently gotten into trouble for using private emails to conduct EPA business to set these up.

Your rant about the Patriot act is exactly what they want. They could care less about that, but as long as you rant about the Patriot act you are missing the millions and billions they are outright stealing from the US taxpayer.

You won't get an argument from me about the WSJ; it's really gone downhill since Murdoch got involved. Also try:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/

You'll not likely agree with him but he's worth a read.

"'removes the need for the enhanced pat-down?"

Telling the TSA to get the fuck out of your airport and re-installing private security with more common sense than your average peanut shell.

The only reason TSA is pervasive is because it is a government handout, replacing the measures they had in place before 9/11. IIRC, there is absolutely nothing preventing airports from replacing TSA with their own security.

When Texas threatened to make "invasive screening" a misdemeanor the TSA threatened to shut down all traffic out of Texas airports. I have no doubt that if an airport tried to expel the TSA and install private security that they'd do the same to that airport.

I think fraud is simply in Florida's DNA.

South Florida, definitely. It's amazing how many scams come from South Florida. There are whole classes of fraud from there not seen much elsewhere. Timeshare-sales fraud, phony DMV fraud, and phony tax-preparer fraud are examples.

In terms of dollar volume, though, lower Manhattan is way ahead. The South Floriday operators tend to be rather low rent.

Oh, and there is more than one reason why those gun safes need to be bolted down.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcwebertobias/2012/07/27/unsafe-gun-safes-can-be-opened-by-a-three-year-old/

People can fantasize all they want. Just because you have a flashy website doesn't mean there's anything of substance behind it. Just look at their timeline. It's a load of crap.

At least Forbes dedicated an article to the guy leading the project. Check http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedrummond/2012/07/19/dmitry-itskov-avatar/

Forgot the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/ Sorry about that.

It amazes me when people are treated like criminals or animals and they don't become infuriated, or even react.

Who says that? You're marketing fodder, something that can be collected and used as data for monetary gain. Are you that Naive to assume that everybody out there wants to be your friend and just give you stuff for free? Free Services, step right up, get your Free Services, get your Free software right here. Yes, there are a *few* who have good intentions however there's a lot of folks out there making a buck on every click, every preference and every search you do. You use a credit card, the banks, the vendor, the credit card company are all tracking you. You buy an airline ticket, the same thing happens + the airline + the government and anybody else they'll sell your information to.

http://www.budgettravel.com/blog/a-rare-peek-at-homeland-securitys-files-on-travelers,10313/
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/06/pf/banks_sell_shopping_data/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

Do you drive a car? If so your government is probably selling your information to dealerships, insurance companies and others.

http://blog.newsok.com/politics/2010/04/05/oklahoma-brings-in-millions-by-selling-personal-data/

Did you download that free app on your phone? It's tracking you.

http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16530607-a-shock-in-the-dark-flashlight-app-tracks-your-location?lite

If you think that's treating you like a criminal then we're all criminals.

That has what to do with this?

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/02/creepy-graph-searchers/

Now you can have pedophiles stalk your kids all with the neat, new graph search!

The point is, you don't get something for nothing. Not in this day and age when every innocuous thing you do is tracked, mined and analyzed 100 different ways. In the case of Ubuntu, they're just following the crowd.

Also if they were I doubt they would be hiding it.

It's worth noting that a lot of the alleged funding isn't actually hidden. For example, everyone knows about the Koch brothers and their funding habits. And the Koch brothers are widely reviled as a result. Google does something similar and they get accolades. The incentive to be secretive just isn't there.

When are people going to finally stand up for themselves and stop ridiculously wealthy CEOs from building their wealth off the backs of everyone else? I'm tired of hearing our politicians simply shift money around rather than going after the very people and companies not paying their fair share.

Urban centers tend to support people in rural areas, and this is certainly true in New York where the city pays out more in taxes than it gets back in services. This also occurs at the national level.

That's a very intuitive thing to think, if you don't take a much closer look at the numbers - who in urban areas produces the wealth, and who votes for the welfare state. A lot of competent people support (or pretend to support) socialist causes in order to "fit in". The benefits of population density often outweigh the negative business climate (an effect that shrinks as telecommunications, transportation, and shipping technologies become more advanced). The economic momentum of the past, when the people in large cities had access to the best educational and cultural institutions, doesn't disappear overnight - but eventually it will. Brains and capital will flee socialist cities for greener pastures.

Of course I have nothing to gain from you agreeing my above paragraph. If you think NYC, with its 46.2% corporate + 45.5% personal income tax rates, will always be the best place to do business, then why not make it a state?

So you, libman, are a direct beneficiary of my tax dollars. Now I don't mind supporting your welfare benefits, but please don't pretend you aren't leeching off me while you're sponging off me.

I *am* sponging off you. That isn't a secret. I'm a healthy 31-year-old male living in NJ, formerly employed as a top-notch developer, former tax resister, and presently unemployed and on welfare. All of this is by choice.

I drink your milkshake!

--libman