Sounds like blaming the victim, as in "You knew there was a chance something bad would happen if you walked alone at night, therefore you deserved it."
The driver going twice the speed limit on a public street is not the "victim" in an accident.
If you want to use bad analogies, how about "You saw that sign that said 'No tresspassing, minefield ahead' yet you ignored the sign and proceeded anyway - you knew the danger, thought you could avoid the mines, but you didn't. Therefore you deserved it".
Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".
They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.
I learned this from first hand experience when I tried to fight my first ticket. I read all of the books (this predated the modern internet) and came up with a perfect defense to impinge the accuracy of the radar unit in heavy traffic, along with pictures and other visual aids to show how the radar gun likely picked up the much bigger target of the car in the other lane rather than my motorcycle.
The somewhat bemused judge listened to my whole spiel and he congratulated me on putting together such a fine defense, but said "The officer testified that he visually ascertained your speed to be 65mph, so even if the radar's 67mph reading was inaccurate, I accept the officer's sworn testimony". But he ended up charging me 64mph to save me some money and points.
The most amusing thing about it now is that this was in a small southern town and the judge was exactly like the judge portrayed by Fred Gwynne (aka Herman Munster) in My Cousin Vinny
I wish I had mod points. Great post. The most dangerous person on the road is the idiot sitting in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit yakking away on their cell phone. Pretty much anyone that does routinely go over 100MPH on the freeway isn't the danger. They know what's going on around them. It's the oblivious idiot that just rolls over a lane or two without checking anything around them because they're too busy talking and/or texting.
Given that you know there are people going 10 under the speed limit in the left lane, isn't it disingenuous to claim that going 50mph faster than them is perfectly safe? Your stopping distance at 100mph is about 4 times greater than at 50mph. And since, as you say, drivers are not always paying the best attention to their driving, you're also at risk from the driver that does a quick check out his mirror before a lane change but doesn't see you because he's not expecting someone to be driving twice his speed.
I'm usually the guy going between 80 and 100 on the freeway. Guess how many accidents I've been involved in in the last 20 years? One. Chick deliberately cut me off in traffic and slammed on the brakes. Nothing I could do. She was talking on her phone and didn't look over her shoulder before cutting me off.
If she was on the phone and didn't look, why do you think she did it deliberately? Sounds more like it was unintentionally, perhaps even negligently. Maybe you were going much faster than prevailing speed.
So, the person going fast isn't the real danger. It's the morons who have no clue what they're doing or what's going on around them.
If you just moved here from a different country and didn't realize that those morons were out there, that might be a valid argument, but to claim that you can drive faster than everyone else is not a fair argument since you *do* know what behaviors to expect.
if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.
At least Pennsylvania and Nebraska courts require more than just a visual speed estimate. A quick search hasn't turned up a comprehensive list.
The number of states that use that standard could not be determined Wednesday. Pennsylvania and Nebraska require more than just a visual speed estimate, though officers in those states have leeway to say a vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed.
So they may not get you for "speeding", but instead "traveling at an unsafe speed".
Ermm, no. He had a "lead" spotter to get him out of the NE corridor of traffic hell, where construction can easily add 4-6 hours to your trip.
Then he had a spotter in the car, and a co-driver that was also spotting/sleeping.
From TFA:
In Pennsylvania, they tapped the first of many scouts, one of Bolian's acquaintances who drove the speed limit 150 to 200 miles ahead of the CL55 and warned them of any police, construction or other problems.
This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.
The danger of speed varies dependent on the road conditions and traffic. There are ways to break limits safely, and it sounds like he took precautions with having spotters for him on the route. The greatest danger was to himself should he lose control at that speed.
His spotters were 150 - 200 miles ahead of him. Even at 100mph, that's 90 - 120 minutes away. A lot can happen on the road in 90 minutes.
Sounds to me like a guy who really goes all out to prepare for the worst. He did as much as he could to mitigate every likely risk (excepting only those that would have defeated the purpose of doing it)
Yet he still turned the wrong way down a one-way street because the GPS told him to.
If his difficulty finding a copilot wasn't an omen, Manhattan would deliver one. While scouting routes out of the city, a GPS unit told Bolian to take a right on red, in the wrong direction down a one-way road. He was quickly pulled over.
Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".
They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.
That's funny, I ran the numbers through my rationally thinking computer and it deemed *all* humans extraneous on this planet because it turns out that this planet operates just fine (well, even better) without any humans at all
There are several flaws in this reasoning. First, a computer can be programmed to take care of humans. Second, humans are the only organisms on this planet that are capable of very wide range of physical work. A computer, all alone on a planet, may be unable to maintain itself.
You are obviously not thinking this through logically. Computers are extraneous too - the planet needs neither humans nor computers. It turns that that humans and computers do not add any real value to the planet. Earth's evolutionary processes have been developed over billions of years to be completely self sufficient and automatically adapt to changing conditions (within reason). Therefore, humans are extraneous and are just getting in the way of established processes.
Of course humans are not computers. Ideally, I'd wish everyone to have everything (including healthcare.) The only problem is that humankind doesn't have enough resources for that, even if every worker surrenders all his money into the global pool of healthcare. That is impossible, of course, because the worker also needs to eat, to have housing, to have children, to have a vacation now and then... this already puts a US worker into a balance that is very close to turning red.
No need to worry about the world yet - the Affordable Care Act only covers US citizens. There's no reason why everyone in the country can't have affordable healthcare, the country has more than enough wealth to provide healthcare to all. After all, we already do because the government will pick up the healthcare costs for anyone that can't afford it.
There are a lot more problems in the world in general than healthcare insurance - like food and clean water. And these problems aren't solved by simply sending food and water, there are complicated social and political problems to solve too. But that's not relevant to the ACA.
The idea of confiscation of nearly all gains from workers and using them, in part, for free healthcare was the way of life in USSR. This bought universal poverty and substandard healthcare. Why to buy the best if ancient equipment, substandard drugs, and idiots as doctors also fit the bill? I am well acquainted with free healthcare, and I don't wish it upon anyone. As they joked in USSR, "the treatment is free only if you do not care about the outcome."
Can you give an example of "nearly all gains"?
Does it look like Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy because they have public healthcare? USA senior citizens take organized bus trips across the border to buy medication in Canada because they can't afford it in the USA. Is that good healthcare policy?
Unless, of course you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury.
Unless you have a net worth worth protecting. Health insurance can't insure your health. In theory, it could prevent you from falling back on Medicaid and/or going into medical bankruptcy. In practice, it has even failed to do that in many cases. Many people, either because "the light bulb went on" or because they simply couldn't afford it, stopped buying. When you have a net worth of less than $10,000 it's arguable that you're foolish to spend $500/mo on an insurance plan.
At $10,000/year, you're so far below the poverty level that you'd qualify for medicaid or other state programs, so you wouldn't be required to purchase insurance. When your income goes above the poverty level, much of your premium would be subsidized. In california, a family of 4 earning $40,000 would pay $120/month in premiums.
Instead, invest the money on things that might actually improve your health such as a gym membership, a good bike, roller skates, etc.
If you just sock the extra money away you're up to $16,000 in the first year, and until Bernanke squashed rates you could factor some compounding on top of that.
Start young, and you could be ready for the more serious problems that come along later, or start buying insurance when it actually makes sense. But NooooO. Then the insurance companies wouldn't make money.
What you're proposing is why they have to make insurance required - skipping insurance because you're young and healthy and counting on the government to bail you out if you do happen to get a catastrophic illness or injury is just making everyone else pay your premiums. The only way that what you're proposing would be fair would be if you could sign away your right to public paid or subsidized healthcare in the event of serious accident or injury - you could only get whatever healthcare you could afford. Don't count on getting a loan to cover unexpected costs - who's going to give a 25 year old stroke victim a loan that he may never be able to pay back due to the injury?
They literally had to force us to buy it. I wouldn't be nearly so upset if it were single payer, with no insurance companies. Instead, we had to protect these useless cronies. If we didn't, the people who make Brawndo would be out of jobs. Health insurance has electionalytes. It's what politicians crave.
I agree, single payer would have been much much better. I wish Obama had the guts to push it, but no matter how much he pushed, I really don't think it was politically possible.
A rationally thinking computer would sentence those people to death anyway because they are, clearly, extraneous on this planet
That's funny, I ran the numbers through my rationally thinking computer and it deemed *all* humans extraneous on this planet because it turns out that this planet operates just fine (well, even better) without any humans at all. Please please proceed to the nearest disintegration station.
I wonder if there's some better judge of a human's value than a computer's sense of what is "extraneous"?
They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.
There aren't enough people as it is to pay double and triple for health plans that they don't need. I, personally, have no desire to even visit "that website," whatever URL it may have. I can pay for my own healthcare without involvement of moneychangers.
Unless, of course you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury. I know someone whose husband slipped while getting out of the shower, he hit his head on the floor, and ended up with a brain injury and needing brain surgery and months of rehabilitation. So far it's cost over half a million dollars. He was in his 30's, a triathlete in perfect health. Fortunately, he had insurance and his wife was able to take 3 months leave to care for him and can support the household on her income.
Few people can afford a $500K medical bill yet society has chosen not to let people die even if they can't afford medical treatment. What's your solution for treating expensive illnesses for the uninsured? Let the seriously ill continue to be covered by hospitals and government? Or just let them die (or euthanize them if they can afford to pay for the euthanasia).
Why does everyone in the country need to use the website at once? Couldn't the problem be fixed with a little javascript function:
1. Enter your Social Security Number 2. Based on your Social Security number, your enrollment date is 1-Nov-2013 - 7-Nov-2013 or anytime after 31-Dec-2013. If you do not know or do not have an SSN, your enrollment date is after 15-Jan-2014. Click here to have an email reminder sent on your enrollment date.
They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.
He already designed a solution based on "a series of tubes", but it was dismissed as being impractical in the real world because it didn't involve enough contractors for implementation.
> leave the doctor's office without having to fill out one stinking form
And I wasn't so grateful when I lived there and had to wait over a week for an appointment when I was pregnant and started bleeding. I lost the baby. Later when I was staying with my inlaws in the US, I had a less serious complication, but I was seen by a doctor in the ER via ambulance in less than fifteen minutes total. Other than the three minute wait for the ambulance, there was literally no way to have been helped faster. Of course that cost a good bit, but I'd rather pay dollars than the life of a baby. "Free" healthcare is very expensive.
How much did you pay for that ambulance ride and ER visit in the USA? How much would you have paid for an ER visit in Australia?
"...the app itself uses over 2GB of ram after it caches all of its data."
And this is why we can't have nice things.
I'm pretty sure it's why we *can* have nice things - it's not a mobile app, it's a server side app, and by keeping its most needed data in cache (and denormalized for speed), it runs much faster than if it had to retrieve it from the database each time a user makes a request. Adding more RAM is a lot cheaper than adding read-replica database servers.
Re:What? Nexus 5 released, Nexus 10 already releas
on
Android KitKat Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So, according to the summary, Google just released Nexus 5. And Android 4.4 will be rolled out to all Nexus 4s, Nexus 7s and Nexus 10s. What? So does that mean that the Nexus 7s and Nexus 10s have already been released? What a fucked up counting system.
Also, who the fuck needs 2GB of RAM on a fucking phone!? My old computer (which I was using until just a year ago) got by on 2.5 GB of RAM, and it ran just fine. I can't imagine doing many of the things that I do (and did on my old computer) on even a fancy phone. For one, the screen is too small, and there is no built in keyboard. Not to mention, I doubt my toolkit has been ported to Android.
If you were running Java apps exclusively on your old 2.5GB computer, you would have been far less happy with that much RAM. I run a Java based IDE on my desktop maxed out with 8GB RAM and still find myself wanting more RAM at times when I'm debugging a large java application - the app itself uses over 2GB of ram after it caches all of its data.
Why the freaking hell do they keep stuffing high-clocked high-speed multi-core CPUs in the standard-res phones, and then leave their super-high-res large-screen tablets with low-speed dual-core-at-best pieces of shit? You're doing it bass-ackwards, Google. For fuck's sake, STOP IT.
Does 1920x1080 count as "standard-res" on a phone these days? What would be "high-res" in a phone? The N10 has a 2560 x 1600 display, "only" twice as number of pixels as the N5 -- does that make it "super-high-res"? The current N10 is has only dual-cores, but it's a year old already... the new N10 is supposed to have a quad-core snapdragon CPU and more RAM than the N5.
Does the resolution really have a strong relation to CPU power? I thought the GPU did most of the heavy lifting when it comes to the display?
1) the law as written and applied would apply to smart phones, and possibly also to your GPS. You likely wouldn't be pulled over for it unless the cop got a good look at your dash as you go by, but even so. "... video monitor..."
Yeah, it's already a stretch to apply a law clearly aimed at "TVs for the driver" to google glass, let alone a GPS monitor. But the cop in question went there, so...
The CA Vehicle Code that governs video screens (27602), explicitly allows:
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
The cell phone law bans only mobile phones. There are restrictions on where a device can be mounted on the windshield, so instead of mounting it directly on the windshield where it would only block my view of the hood, to stay legal, I use a "sandbag" style GPS suction cup mount that places the GPS higher and closer to me which blocks a bit of my view of the road.
And the courts have already rejected the argument that a phone in GPS mode is only a GPS - they consider it as a phone. Likewise, the Google Glass would apparently not be considered a GPS unless it was only a GPS.
2) if your GPS is only changing speed indication as you pass the sign, you might well be too late changing speed, if you've a cop with a quota behind you. IE "the new speed limit starts at the sign." I've been pulled over for speeding after just passing a sign while slowing down for the new speed limit. It happens, some times.
Yeah, the new speed limit starts at the sign, so I don't ignore the signs, but the GPS is a good backup so if I miss a sign I don't continue driving 65mph after entering a 55mph zone. The speed indicator on the GPS turns red if I exceed the speed limit, so I don't even have to look directly at it to see that I'm above the speed limit (though I wish it would let me set 5mph of leeway before it turns red). I think I could enable an audible alert too, but that seems too annoying.
I required more than that to take a 125cc moped out on the open road without an instructor.
I had to drive round a closed driving course, then go out with the instructor. The complete course to drive a 125cc moped (that only lasts two years before I'd have to either do it again or take the full test) took two days.
A safety specialist will accompany you while driving in an off-road testing area or on a public road course
...
What skills are tested? Driving in reverse Stopping at appropriate signs Nearing corners or intersections Stopping smoothly Sitting properly Turning around Steering properly Parallel parking Yielding to right-of-way
Sadly, those exceptions don't apply because the display is not *solely* a mapping display or a global positioning display. Only dedicated devices meet those definitions. Your smart phone, even with a mapping or GPG program active doesn't count either. It's already settled law.
Correct -- police have issued tickets to people using their phone as a GPS:
She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them
Actually, I can understand what she's talking about - the signs are not always there and/or are can be obscured by other traffic. I specifically purchashed a GPS with a speed limit display so even if I miss a sign I know what the speed limit is. And I've found that on highways, the speed limit display is surprisingly accurate -- usually it changes at the exact point where I'm passing a new speed limit sign.
Also, many municipalities assume that you know what their blanket speed limit is and don't post any signs. I commuted on a wide suburban street for nearly a year thinking that the speed limit was 35mph, then one day the local police set up one of those "Your speed is XX mph" radar signs, and i found that the speed limit was only 25mph. There is not a single single speed limit sign anywhere on that road.
If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.
Isn't that true of any speed measurement device? They aren't required to show you the speed indicated on whatever device they are using, and even if you look at the device and see a different speed indicated on it, they can say "Oh yeah, I must have hit the reset button when I was chasing you."
The judge will ask the cop how fast you were driving, he'll say 88mph, you'll say 65mph, and the judge will believe what the cop said.
Oh, and why even bother with driver training? We can just give people licenses to drive without testing their ability to do so. Because, you know, training is over-rated.
Isn't that what we do already? When I got my drivers license, I had to drive around a closed driving course, demonstrate that I could stay in my lane at 15mph, stop at a stop sign, use my turn signals, and park. That was it.
Slashdot Mirror
since you *do* know what behaviors to expect.
Sounds like blaming the victim, as in "You knew there was a chance something bad would happen if you walked alone at night, therefore you deserved it."
The driver going twice the speed limit on a public street is not the "victim" in an accident.
If you want to use bad analogies, how about "You saw that sign that said 'No tresspassing, minefield ahead' yet you ignored the sign and proceeded anyway - you knew the danger, thought you could avoid the mines, but you didn't. Therefore you deserved it".
Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".
They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.
absolutely not true.
The courts (at least some courts) disagree:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html
I learned this from first hand experience when I tried to fight my first ticket. I read all of the books (this predated the modern internet) and came up with a perfect defense to impinge the accuracy of the radar unit in heavy traffic, along with pictures and other visual aids to show how the radar gun likely picked up the much bigger target of the car in the other lane rather than my motorcycle.
The somewhat bemused judge listened to my whole spiel and he congratulated me on putting together such a fine defense, but said "The officer testified that he visually ascertained your speed to be 65mph, so even if the radar's 67mph reading was inaccurate, I accept the officer's sworn testimony". But he ended up charging me 64mph to save me some money and points.
The most amusing thing about it now is that this was in a small southern town and the judge was exactly like the judge portrayed by Fred Gwynne (aka Herman Munster) in My Cousin Vinny
I wish I had mod points. Great post. The most dangerous person on the road is the idiot sitting in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit yakking away on their cell phone. Pretty much anyone that does routinely go over 100MPH on the freeway isn't the danger. They know what's going on around them. It's the oblivious idiot that just rolls over a lane or two without checking anything around them because they're too busy talking and/or texting.
Given that you know there are people going 10 under the speed limit in the left lane, isn't it disingenuous to claim that going 50mph faster than them is perfectly safe? Your stopping distance at 100mph is about 4 times greater than at 50mph. And since, as you say, drivers are not always paying the best attention to their driving, you're also at risk from the driver that does a quick check out his mirror before a lane change but doesn't see you because he's not expecting someone to be driving twice his speed.
I'm usually the guy going between 80 and 100 on the freeway. Guess how many accidents I've been involved in in the last 20 years? One. Chick deliberately cut me off in traffic and slammed on the brakes. Nothing I could do. She was talking on her phone and didn't look over her shoulder before cutting me off.
If she was on the phone and didn't look, why do you think she did it deliberately? Sounds more like it was unintentionally, perhaps even negligently. Maybe you were going much faster than prevailing speed.
So, the person going fast isn't the real danger. It's the morons who have no clue what they're doing or what's going on around them.
If you just moved here from a different country and didn't realize that those morons were out there, that might be a valid argument, but to claim that you can drive faster than everyone else is not a fair argument since you *do* know what behaviors to expect.
At least Pennsylvania and Nebraska courts require more than just a visual speed estimate. A quick search hasn't turned up a comprehensive list.
It's been upheld in Ohio:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html
But even in PA and NE:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/visual_speed_estimates_by_poli.html
The number of states that use that standard could not be determined Wednesday. Pennsylvania and Nebraska require more than just a visual speed estimate, though officers in those states have leeway to say a vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed.
So they may not get you for "speeding", but instead "traveling at an unsafe speed".
Ermm, no. He had a "lead" spotter to get him out of the NE corridor of traffic hell, where construction can easily add 4-6 hours to your trip.
Then he had a spotter in the car, and a co-driver that was also spotting/sleeping.
From TFA:
In Pennsylvania, they tapped the first of many scouts, one of Bolian's acquaintances who drove the speed limit 150 to 200 miles ahead of the CL55 and warned them of any police, construction or other problems.
This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.
The danger of speed varies dependent on the road conditions and traffic. There are ways to break limits safely, and it sounds like he took precautions with having spotters for him on the route. The greatest danger was to himself should he lose control at that speed.
His spotters were 150 - 200 miles ahead of him. Even at 100mph, that's 90 - 120 minutes away. A lot can happen on the road in 90 minutes.
Sounds to me like a guy who really goes all out to prepare for the worst. He did as much as he could to mitigate every likely risk (excepting only those that would have defeated the purpose of doing it)
Yet he still turned the wrong way down a one-way street because the GPS told him to.
If his difficulty finding a copilot wasn't an omen, Manhattan would deliver one. While scouting routes out of the city, a GPS unit told Bolian to take a right on red, in the wrong direction down a one-way road. He was quickly pulled over.
Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".
They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.
That's funny, I ran the numbers through my rationally thinking computer and it deemed *all* humans extraneous on this planet because it turns out that this planet operates just fine (well, even better) without any humans at all
There are several flaws in this reasoning. First, a computer can be programmed to take care of humans. Second, humans are the only organisms on this planet that are capable of very wide range of physical work. A computer, all alone on a planet, may be unable to maintain itself.
You are obviously not thinking this through logically. Computers are extraneous too - the planet needs neither humans nor computers. It turns that that humans and computers do not add any real value to the planet. Earth's evolutionary processes have been developed over billions of years to be completely self sufficient and automatically adapt to changing conditions (within reason). Therefore, humans are extraneous and are just getting in the way of established processes.
Of course humans are not computers. Ideally, I'd wish everyone to have everything (including healthcare.) The only problem is that humankind doesn't have enough resources for that, even if every worker surrenders all his money into the global pool of healthcare. That is impossible, of course, because the worker also needs to eat, to have housing, to have children, to have a vacation now and then... this already puts a US worker into a balance that is very close to turning red.
No need to worry about the world yet - the Affordable Care Act only covers US citizens. There's no reason why everyone in the country can't have affordable healthcare, the country has more than enough wealth to provide healthcare to all. After all, we already do because the government will pick up the healthcare costs for anyone that can't afford it.
There are a lot more problems in the world in general than healthcare insurance - like food and clean water. And these problems aren't solved by simply sending food and water, there are complicated social and political problems to solve too. But that's not relevant to the ACA.
The idea of confiscation of nearly all gains from workers and using them, in part, for free healthcare was the way of life in USSR. This bought universal poverty and substandard healthcare. Why to buy the best if ancient equipment, substandard drugs, and idiots as doctors also fit the bill? I am well acquainted with free healthcare, and I don't wish it upon anyone. As they joked in USSR, "the treatment is free only if you do not care about the outcome."
Can you give an example of "nearly all gains"?
Does it look like Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy because they have public healthcare? USA senior citizens take organized bus trips across the border to buy medication in Canada because they can't afford it in the USA. Is that good healthcare policy?
Unless, of course you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury.
Unless you have a net worth worth protecting. Health insurance can't insure your health. In theory, it could prevent you from falling back on Medicaid and/or going into medical bankruptcy. In practice, it has even failed to do that in many cases. Many people, either because "the light bulb went on" or because they simply couldn't afford it, stopped buying. When you have a net worth of less than $10,000 it's arguable that you're foolish to spend $500/mo on an insurance plan.
At $10,000/year, you're so far below the poverty level that you'd qualify for medicaid or other state programs, so you wouldn't be required to purchase insurance. When your income goes above the poverty level, much of your premium would be subsidized. In california, a family of 4 earning $40,000 would pay $120/month in premiums.
Instead, invest the money on things that might actually improve your health such as a gym membership, a good bike, roller skates, etc.
If you just sock the extra money away you're up to $16,000 in the first year, and until Bernanke squashed rates you could factor some compounding on top of that.
Start young, and you could be ready for the more serious problems that come along later, or start buying insurance when it actually makes sense. But NooooO. Then the insurance companies wouldn't make money.
What you're proposing is why they have to make insurance required - skipping insurance because you're young and healthy and counting on the government to bail you out if you do happen to get a catastrophic illness or injury is just making everyone else pay your premiums. The only way that what you're proposing would be fair would be if you could sign away your right to public paid or subsidized healthcare in the event of serious accident or injury - you could only get whatever healthcare you could afford. Don't count on getting a loan to cover unexpected costs - who's going to give a 25 year old stroke victim a loan that he may never be able to pay back due to the injury?
They literally had to force us to buy it. I wouldn't be nearly so upset if it were single payer, with no insurance companies. Instead, we had to protect these useless cronies. If we didn't, the people who make Brawndo would be out of jobs. Health insurance has electionalytes. It's what politicians crave.
I agree, single payer would have been much much better. I wish Obama had the guts to push it, but no matter how much he pushed, I really don't think it was politically possible.
A rationally thinking computer would sentence those people to death anyway because they are, clearly, extraneous on this planet
That's funny, I ran the numbers through my rationally thinking computer and it deemed *all* humans extraneous on this planet because it turns out that this planet operates just fine (well, even better) without any humans at all. Please please proceed to the nearest disintegration station.
I wonder if there's some better judge of a human's value than a computer's sense of what is "extraneous"?
They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.
There aren't enough people as it is to pay double and triple for health plans that they don't need. I, personally, have no desire to even visit "that website," whatever URL it may have. I can pay for my own healthcare without involvement of moneychangers.
Unless, of course you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury. I know someone whose husband slipped while getting out of the shower, he hit his head on the floor, and ended up with a brain injury and needing brain surgery and months of rehabilitation. So far it's cost over half a million dollars. He was in his 30's, a triathlete in perfect health. Fortunately, he had insurance and his wife was able to take 3 months leave to care for him and can support the household on her income.
Few people can afford a $500K medical bill yet society has chosen not to let people die even if they can't afford medical treatment. What's your solution for treating expensive illnesses for the uninsured? Let the seriously ill continue to be covered by hospitals and government? Or just let them die (or euthanize them if they can afford to pay for the euthanasia).
Why does everyone in the country need to use the website at once? Couldn't the problem be fixed with a little javascript function:
1. Enter your Social Security Number
2. Based on your Social Security number, your enrollment date is 1-Nov-2013 - 7-Nov-2013 or anytime after 31-Dec-2013. If you do not know or do not have an SSN, your enrollment date is after 15-Jan-2014. Click here to have an email reminder sent on your enrollment date.
They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.
And Elon Musk hasn't even been MENTIONED yet?!
He already designed a solution based on "a series of tubes", but it was dismissed as being impractical in the real world because it didn't involve enough contractors for implementation.
> leave the doctor's office without having to fill out one stinking form
And I wasn't so grateful when I lived there and had to wait over a week for an appointment when I was pregnant and started bleeding. I lost the baby. Later when I was staying with my inlaws in the US, I had a less serious complication, but I was seen by a doctor in the ER via ambulance in less than fifteen minutes total. Other than the three minute wait for the ambulance, there was literally no way to have been helped faster. Of course that cost a good bit, but I'd rather pay dollars than the life of a baby. "Free" healthcare is very expensive.
How much did you pay for that ambulance ride and ER visit in the USA? How much would you have paid for an ER visit in Australia?
"...the app itself uses over 2GB of ram after it caches all of its data."
And this is why we can't have nice things.
I'm pretty sure it's why we *can* have nice things - it's not a mobile app, it's a server side app, and by keeping its most needed data in cache (and denormalized for speed), it runs much faster than if it had to retrieve it from the database each time a user makes a request. Adding more RAM is a lot cheaper than adding read-replica database servers.
So, according to the summary, Google just released Nexus 5. And Android 4.4 will be rolled out to all Nexus 4s, Nexus 7s and Nexus 10s. What? So does that mean that the Nexus 7s and Nexus 10s have already been released? What a fucked up counting system.
Also, who the fuck needs 2GB of RAM on a fucking phone!? My old computer (which I was using until just a year ago) got by on 2.5 GB of RAM, and it ran just fine. I can't imagine doing many of the things that I do (and did on my old computer) on even a fancy phone. For one, the screen is too small, and there is no built in keyboard. Not to mention, I doubt my toolkit has been ported to Android.
If you were running Java apps exclusively on your old 2.5GB computer, you would have been far less happy with that much RAM. I run a Java based IDE on my desktop maxed out with 8GB RAM and still find myself wanting more RAM at times when I'm debugging a large java application - the app itself uses over 2GB of ram after it caches all of its data.
Why the freaking hell do they keep stuffing high-clocked high-speed multi-core CPUs in the standard-res phones, and then leave their super-high-res large-screen tablets with low-speed dual-core-at-best pieces of shit? You're doing it bass-ackwards, Google. For fuck's sake, STOP IT.
Does 1920x1080 count as "standard-res" on a phone these days? What would be "high-res" in a phone? The N10 has a 2560 x 1600 display, "only" twice as number of pixels as the N5 -- does that make it "super-high-res"? The current N10 is has only dual-cores, but it's a year old already... the new N10 is supposed to have a quad-core snapdragon CPU and more RAM than the N5.
Does the resolution really have a strong relation to CPU power? I thought the GPU did most of the heavy lifting when it comes to the display?
I wonder if it will continue to randomly turn off the Nexus 4, like 4.3 does.
Is that a well known problem? My N4 doesn't seem to have it.
Two things...
1) the law as written and applied would apply to smart phones, and possibly also to your GPS. You likely wouldn't be pulled over for it unless the cop got a good look at your dash as you go by, but even so. "... video monitor..."
Yeah, it's already a stretch to apply a law clearly aimed at "TVs for the driver" to google glass, let alone a GPS monitor. But the cop in question went there, so...
The CA Vehicle Code that governs video screens (27602), explicitly allows:
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
The cell phone law bans only mobile phones. There are restrictions on where a device can be mounted on the windshield, so instead of mounting it directly on the windshield where it would only block my view of the hood, to stay legal, I use a "sandbag" style GPS suction cup mount that places the GPS higher and closer to me which blocks a bit of my view of the road.
And the courts have already rejected the argument that a phone in GPS mode is only a GPS - they consider it as a phone. Likewise, the Google Glass would apparently not be considered a GPS unless it was only a GPS.
2) if your GPS is only changing speed indication as you pass the sign, you might well be too late changing speed, if you've a cop with a quota behind you. IE "the new speed limit starts at the sign." I've been pulled over for speeding after just passing a sign while slowing down for the new speed limit. It happens, some times.
Yeah, the new speed limit starts at the sign, so I don't ignore the signs, but the GPS is a good backup so if I miss a sign I don't continue driving 65mph after entering a 55mph zone. The speed indicator on the GPS turns red if I exceed the speed limit, so I don't even have to look directly at it to see that I'm above the speed limit (though I wish it would let me set 5mph of leeway before it turns red). I think I could enable an audible alert too, but that seems too annoying.
I required more than that to take a 125cc moped out on the open road without an instructor.
I had to drive round a closed driving course, then go out with the instructor. The complete course to drive a 125cc moped (that only lasts two years before I'd have to either do it again or take the full test) took two days.
When and where did you take your driving test?
This isn't where I took my test, but for example:
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/RoadTest.htm
A safety specialist will accompany you while driving in an off-road testing area or on a public road course
What skills are tested?
Driving in reverse
Stopping at appropriate signs
Nearing corners or intersections
Stopping smoothly
Sitting properly
Turning around
Steering properly
Parallel parking
Yielding to right-of-way
Sadly, those exceptions don't apply because the display is not *solely* a mapping display or a global positioning display. Only dedicated devices meet those definitions. Your smart phone, even with a mapping or GPG program active doesn't count either. It's already settled law.
Correct -- police have issued tickets to people using their phone as a GPS:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/04/calif-court-upholds-ticket-for-phone-gps-use-while-driving/
She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??" Actually California does have an "app" to alert you when zones change, it involves physical displays of the current speed limit that come into eyesight as you physically approach them
Actually, I can understand what she's talking about - the signs are not always there and/or are can be obscured by other traffic. I specifically purchashed a GPS with a speed limit display so even if I miss a sign I know what the speed limit is. And I've found that on highways, the speed limit display is surprisingly accurate -- usually it changes at the exact point where I'm passing a new speed limit sign.
Also, many municipalities assume that you know what their blanket speed limit is and don't post any signs. I commuted on a wide suburban street for nearly a year thinking that the speed limit was 35mph, then one day the local police set up one of those "Your speed is XX mph" radar signs, and i found that the speed limit was only 25mph. There is not a single single speed limit sign anywhere on that road.
If the cops in CA are anything like the MD/DC cops, PACE method means they get to make up whatever they want about how fast you were going.
Isn't that true of any speed measurement device? They aren't required to show you the speed indicated on whatever device they are using, and even if you look at the device and see a different speed indicated on it, they can say "Oh yeah, I must have hit the reset button when I was chasing you."
The judge will ask the cop how fast you were driving, he'll say 88mph, you'll say 65mph, and the judge will believe what the cop said.
Oh, and why even bother with driver training? We can just give people licenses to drive without testing their ability to do so. Because, you know, training is over-rated.
Isn't that what we do already? When I got my drivers license, I had to drive around a closed driving course, demonstrate that I could stay in my lane at 15mph, stop at a stop sign, use my turn signals, and park. That was it.