If you lived on a planet of the star closest to the black hole, would the passing of your time be measurably different from ours?
Measurably but imperceptibly different from ours. But for the planet, no different than before. The gravity along a planet's orbit would be unchanged by the star's collapse. If it survives the red giant phase or the explosion, a planet's orbit won't be expected to change. By me, anyway.
The interesting spacetime effects that we associate with black holes take plase close to the singularity at the center, in regions of space that were formerly buried under the original star's surface. It would be hard to explain how you could find a planet bound in a stable orbit in there now. In the absence of gravity from a third body, things will either strike the singularity or take a mostly hyperbolic trajectory past it.
And be careful what you mean when you say "would the passing of your time be measurably different from ours" because some people take that to mean that you'll look down at your watch and see the hands moving faster or slower than usual. You'll always experience proper time for your reference frame, which basically means you'll never see that. The difference is with clocks far away from the black hole, which tick more quickly than clocks closer to it.
The singularity is a point but the Schwarzchild radius around it is directly proportional to mass. One earth mass is equivalent to something like a few cm of Schwarzchild radius.
Inside the Schwarzchild radius everything falls into the hole regardless of velocity, no exceptions.
I used to work as an analytical chemist in a place that made phenazopyridine tablets, which are sold under the brand name Pyridium. This stuff is prescribed for women with urinary tract infections, and acts as a urinary analgesic.
Phenazopyridine has an aromatic azo -N=N- bond in it that exists in resonant conformation between a benzene ring and a pyridine ring. Azo bonds impart strong red-orange-yellow colors, and in pure form phenazopyridine is a dark red powder. It's only slightly soluble in water, but it really likes alcohols and the standard solvent in most lab procedures was methanol. And you have to use alcohol for everything with this stuff- you'll end up spraying alcohol everywhere and wiping stuff down with alcohol multiple times. Saturated alcoholic solutions are dark reddish-orange, but in lower concentrations the color fades to dark orange and then light orange before settling on a powerful yellow at extremely low concentrations that gives everything a just-pissed-on look. The tiniest speck could probably turn an Olympic swimming pool a noticeable yellow. In alcohol the yellow stain is really mobile, and a major way it gets around is when people try to clean it. The alcohol turns into yellow ink that gets everywhere. But you can't use water because that will set the stain.
All the hallways had fuzzy yellow lines running down their centers because people were tracking phenazopyridine around. The copy machine, the doorknobs, the tables, the balances, books, papers, sinks, everything- it all picked up a faint yellow sheen. You'd see a yellow tinge along the edges of things, and soon stuff at your house would pick up a yellow tinge. I haven't worked at that place for over a decade and I still have a few yellow-tinged items around.
The major side effect when taken for urinary tract infections is dark orange urine. Make sure to close the lid when you flush or your house might turn yellow. For that matter, your blood is now a powerful yellow dye so be careful if you bleed in the house. You can't wear contact lenses either because your corneas will stain them yellow. And avoid Olympic swimming pools I guess.
I heard an interesting phenazopyridine story recently, from someone who had a friend taking it for a UTI. She thought her urine was so pretty that she decided to stain her hair orange for Halloween with one of her tablets. Which worked, until she tried to wash it out. I can't imagine what that scene must have been like, but without an alcoholic shower it sounds pretty hopeless. She ended up shaving her head.
That's funny, I can't seem to find any place in my posting that disparages Craigslist.
What's funny? I just saw a chance to tell my Craigslist lovebird story. Your got your Troll and Overrated mods from other people.
However, I would not consider the activity level on the site itself to be any indication of how "tech friendly" a particular location is. All it really takes to utilize the site is a working internet browser and a working level of knowledge towards the site's very existence. A number of people I know regularly browse through the postings on Craigslist, and the majority of them could not be considered "tech"y in the least.
You're missing the point of why usage of Craigslist (or any site like it) is a useful index of a community's tech savviness. A necessary requirement (although obviously not a sufficient one) for Craigslist's usefulness is for a lot of web users to be in town. Low Craigslist usage says nothing abut a community, but high Craigslist usage strongly indicates that this requirement at least (among others) has been met. High Ebay usage would also indicate that, but not quite as much- since an Ebay interaction only requires one local user, and Craigslist interactions require two. Ebay is still useful to tech-savvy people who live in "non-tech-savvy" places, in a way that Craigslist is not. Craigslist's usefulness is severely impacted by where you live.
My own tech savviness has been relatively constant, and Craigslist would have been useless to me in most of the places I've lived. I would have never found the birdcage; I'd probably be stuck with a bird in a bag regardless of my basic web skills. Craigslist is useful in Silicon Valley because everyone knows that everyone else is using it, like the way Orkut is most useful to Brazilians after reaching critical mass in Brazil.
No matter how tech savvy a place is, Craigslist (or any site like it) is only going to be useful if everyone in town regularly turns to it, like a dating site. Ebay only works because it's used by large numbers of people all over the world in preference to all the auction sites you've never heard of. Craigslist sets up local connections, so other users have to be in town, but the same idea applies. The problem is getting a critical mass of local users, not navigating the actual site. Anyone with a computer and a working brainstem can do that. But you have to have a computer which already says something.
I found a lovebird hiding in a bush one day a few years ago, in a row of hedges just outside work; obviously someone's pet had escaped. I forget what I originally used to capture it; I think I got it into a paper bag and brought it in. That bird was freaked.
I went on Craigslist and found someone in the neighborhood who was advertising free bird cages that he was throwing away. So I emailed the guy and he replied with his address, saying he was leaving for work, but the cages would be out front with the trash. I went over to his house with a friend of mine and they were by the curb like he said. We took one and left.
With the bird now in its free cage I posted "FOUND LOVEBIRD" on Craigslist and a guy up the street responded. He said he kept love birds and canaries in cages outside his business (he ran a day care), and that he was missing one of his two lovebirds. A few people in the office who were in the habit of taking walks confirmed this, saying yes, they remembered seeing birds there, it's obviously one of those.
So case closed. We took our lovebird in its free cage, and walked over to this guy's business. Lovebirds don't like being alone; they want to be in pairs. And they use a species-specific call to find other lovebirds. So as we approached, the birds started "pinging" each other back and forth with this call, which became more frequent as we approached. And they went nuts in their cages as they became fully aware of each other. It was actually a pretty cool thing to see. We let our bird hop into the cage with the other one, and they started chatting with each other and flying around like mad.
The guy was puzzled, because it wasn't the same lovebird that he lost. But we left it there anyway. It worked out well for everybody. My friend and I got to skip work for a while, didn't pay for anything, the guy got his free replacement lovebird, and the replacement lovebird not only survived but found a good home with his other lovebird. All thanks to Craigslist. I hope his original lovebird also found a good home.
Lethal to organisms that share the same set of tRNAs.
In general a tRNA set is unique to a given species although most species have similar tRNAs. But if the organisms in question were to have different ones, then their version of the same poison would have a different base sequence, as it would be translated differently from mRNA by RNA polymerase II.
So right there is a big grain of salt to take with the idea of "innately poisonous" DNA that is "incompatible with life". Everything in its proper context.
The human genome contains 3 billion base pairs which (as it's base 4) comes to about 4*(3*10^9)=12billion bits
A base 4 digit contains two bits of information, not four. 00, 01, 10, 11.
and there are roughly 280 million tadpoles in each puddle of love so actually your total data output is about 3,360,000,000,000,000,000 bits
That's wrong too. You can't just multiply by the count; each one contains a unique set of 3 billion bits which is always a different subset of the same 6 billion bits, chopped up into contiguous chunks. Unless you want to count the same information more than once if it appears in multiple places. But it's not as if each one is from a different guy.
Have technologists made that wonderful electronic paper where you can store your entire porn collection on one sheet?
I can store 6 billion bits of information in a single piece of tissue paper.
Although I never read the information in that format since I can rely on copies that are kept elsewhere.
Re:how stupid are these people?!
on
Bluetooth Lawsuit
·
· Score: 0, Troll
The grandparent is correct. This is ordinary, lawful behavior, not "scamming", since the financial history and current success of the defendants is irrelevant. If that's allowed to have anything to do with it, then something's very wrong.
I daresay you'd file a suit yourself if you held a patent that you knew several cellphone manufacturers were infringing. Most people can easily justify something like that.
No Congressional legislative action or Congressional oversight for ten years? Sounds like a great idea. You could fit two whole presidential terms in there!
If the country were only facing Texas-sized problems, this would be a good idea. Unfortunately our real problems are bigger than the ones they have in Texas.
The real problems always seem to occur when you have politicians looking for things to do, to make themselves look useful.
Look at us right now. We currently have a lot of stuff that needs doing. No politician needs to be looking very far. Just think of all the things we need to get moving on yesterday- federal budget deficits, global warming and environmental issues, water shortages, accelerating economic stratification, trade deficits, housing bubbles, energy crises, a pending transition from an oil-based economy, etc. And what has Congress been up to during this time?
This is what the 109th Congress thought was important:
And that's not even counting their legislation that actually addresses real problems but incompetently, like the Medicare prescription drug bill. The problem isn't that we have a Congress in session; it's that we elect Congresses that like to pander to us on stupid issues while Rome burns.
But the 109th Congress shares your opinion that the 110th Congress is best tied up. So they closed their doors after the election without doing their mandated job of closing out their own spending bills. They left behind a half-trillion dollar mess of budget bills so that the next Congress will have to waste time unraveling all of it. Good work if you can get it.
If you ever do decide you want Acrobat again, you'll have to run the Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 installer. And then four more installers to climb up the versions from 7.0.1 through 7.0.8 or whatever it is now. And then the final installer to fix this vulnerability.
Or you can find the 5.0 version somewhere, from happier days. Somebody at Adobe really has their head up their ass.
I read that, and thought to myself: is science becoming the new religion of the 21st century?
* "Don't act without consulting a scientist!" * "Science is responsible for all good things!" * "Only say things approved by science!" * "Public policy made by scientists is the best policy!"
Did I say religion? Looking at those, I think I meant _theocracy_
These are four straw-men that have been plucked out of their proper context at best even if someone did say them. And science is not a religion.
Oh they are still evil. You realize this is their plan to control the US, right?
Ha, ha. Actually Wal-Mart deserves praise for the pro-environmental actions it takes, if only because we want to encourage them to continue. People aren't inclined to give corporations the benefit of the doubt so when they do good things it's often overlooked. This was a good thing and we should not overlook it.
There are some simple changes that some corporations are in a position to make which have great environmental impact, like when Google started pushing the PC industry to make simple 12 volt power supplies instead of inefficient ones with multiple voltage outputs. People assume that pro-environment means "expensive" but that's not necessarily the case. More and more companies are realizing that this sort of thing can be a cheap, painless way to generate good press for your organization. And after all, Wal-Mart is not really an evil company, just a money-grubbing company that deservedly gets a lot of press for doing evil things.
It's a great move by WalMart. This gets them great press with people calling them "not evil" on Slashdot and everything, and it cost them practically NOTHING.
Which would you rather work for? And if you say the local roaster, you clearly have never had an ambulance ride and multiple-day stay in the hospital. Neither have I, but I know what they cost.
There is no one "cost" to know; the screwed up American health system is notorious for charging different prices depending on who you are and whether you have employer-provided health insurance (cheapest price), health insurance you paid for yourself (ripoff prices), or no health insurance (extortion). Generally, the more you're hurting for money, the more zeroes they append to your bill.
The local roaster will also pay a much higher premium than Starbucks would have to pay for the same coverage. And if you buy health insurance yourself, instead of getting it from your employer, you run a much higher risk of having your coverage retroactively cancelled if you get sick.
But remember, best health care system in the world.
I wonder if they're going to have Nazis in this movie, now that Harrison Ford has been aging for decades.
Either the Nazis will come out of a time warp in the 1960s, or maybe they'll continue to set the movie pre-WWII and explain that Indiana aged 25 years instantly when he decided to open that box and peek inside the Ark, just for a second, with sunglasses on.
I posted two lengthy texts. The first is from the DOE reg, and the second lengthier text is a rider that was attached to unrelated congressional legislation that is supposed to act as a guide for the DOE reg in this area. It basically says the DOE should be polygraphing scientists once the Lysenkoist "Polygraph Review" committee that it defines in part 2e "reviews the scientific evidence on the polygraph of the National Academy of Sciences" and tells the government that its polygraphy is A-OK, which was probably inevitable.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 passed the House as HR 2586 and the Senate as S. 1438. While the actual policy with respect to polygraphs is established and implemented by the DOE, this rider to the Act set the parameters to guide that policy.
Although I don't think it was one of the "emergency" bills, just the yearly defense budget bill for 2002. I'm not sure our habit of having yearly defense budget emergency bills extends further back than 2003 and I'm too lazy to look it up. Still, whether it was or not, as a major defense budget allocation, it was "must-pass" legislation of the sort that often has questionable unrelated riders added- to do questionable stuff like build $200 million bridges to uninhabited parts of Alaska.
a committee of the National Academy of Sciences has declared that, beyond being inadmissible in court, there is no scientific basis for polygraphs
Le'me see: because there is no scientific basis for polygraphs (because they are not admissible in court--having nothing to do with the science of polygraphs, but because of court standards for admission of evidence), if you agree to something this unscientific, then you cannot possibly claim to be a scientist.
Huh?
There is no scientific basis for polygraphs. Therefore they fail to meet court standards for admission of evidence. And therefore they are not admissable in court. This guy is formulating what is at least partially a legal argument as well as a scientific and political argument and so it is very relevant for him to point out the complete NAS opinion that polygraphs are not admissable in court, in addition to having no scientific basis. The NAS position he cites specifically says "beyond", not "because of". While the author does use established legal standards to support his argument in a rhetorical sense, he is not relying on them as proof of anything scientific.
I don't know where you divined the information that polygraphs fail to meet court standards for admission of evidence for any reason other than their lack of a scientific basis. Specifically, those standards keep polygraphs out of courtrooms because of their high error rate, as one would expect from a technology built on top of a pseudoscience.
As for the rest of your argument, the choice of whether or not to consent to a stupid polygraph is simply not on par with one's freedom of religion.
Slashdot Mirror
If you lived on a planet of the star closest to the black hole, would the passing of your time be measurably different from ours?
Measurably but imperceptibly different from ours. But for the planet, no different than before. The gravity along a planet's orbit would be unchanged by the star's collapse. If it survives the red giant phase or the explosion, a planet's orbit won't be expected to change. By me, anyway.
The interesting spacetime effects that we associate with black holes take plase close to the singularity at the center, in regions of space that were formerly buried under the original star's surface. It would be hard to explain how you could find a planet bound in a stable orbit in there now. In the absence of gravity from a third body, things will either strike the singularity or take a mostly hyperbolic trajectory past it.
And be careful what you mean when you say "would the passing of your time be measurably different from ours" because some people take that to mean that you'll look down at your watch and see the hands moving faster or slower than usual. You'll always experience proper time for your reference frame, which basically means you'll never see that. The difference is with clocks far away from the black hole, which tick more quickly than clocks closer to it.
The singularity is a point but the Schwarzchild radius around it is directly proportional to mass. One earth mass is equivalent to something like a few cm of Schwarzchild radius.
Inside the Schwarzchild radius everything falls into the hole regardless of velocity, no exceptions.
I used to work as an analytical chemist in a place that made phenazopyridine tablets, which are sold under the brand name Pyridium. This stuff is prescribed for women with urinary tract infections, and acts as a urinary analgesic.
Phenazopyridine has an aromatic azo -N=N- bond in it that exists in resonant conformation between a benzene ring and a pyridine ring. Azo bonds impart strong red-orange-yellow colors, and in pure form phenazopyridine is a dark red powder. It's only slightly soluble in water, but it really likes alcohols and the standard solvent in most lab procedures was methanol. And you have to use alcohol for everything with this stuff- you'll end up spraying alcohol everywhere and wiping stuff down with alcohol multiple times. Saturated alcoholic solutions are dark reddish-orange, but in lower concentrations the color fades to dark orange and then light orange before settling on a powerful yellow at extremely low concentrations that gives everything a just-pissed-on look. The tiniest speck could probably turn an Olympic swimming pool a noticeable yellow. In alcohol the yellow stain is really mobile, and a major way it gets around is when people try to clean it. The alcohol turns into yellow ink that gets everywhere. But you can't use water because that will set the stain.
All the hallways had fuzzy yellow lines running down their centers because people were tracking phenazopyridine around. The copy machine, the doorknobs, the tables, the balances, books, papers, sinks, everything- it all picked up a faint yellow sheen. You'd see a yellow tinge along the edges of things, and soon stuff at your house would pick up a yellow tinge. I haven't worked at that place for over a decade and I still have a few yellow-tinged items around.
The major side effect when taken for urinary tract infections is dark orange urine. Make sure to close the lid when you flush or your house might turn yellow. For that matter, your blood is now a powerful yellow dye so be careful if you bleed in the house. You can't wear contact lenses either because your corneas will stain them yellow. And avoid Olympic swimming pools I guess.
I heard an interesting phenazopyridine story recently, from someone who had a friend taking it for a UTI. She thought her urine was so pretty that she decided to stain her hair orange for Halloween with one of her tablets. Which worked, until she tried to wash it out. I can't imagine what that scene must have been like, but without an alcoholic shower it sounds pretty hopeless. She ended up shaving her head.
You're missing the point of why usage of Craigslist (or any site like it) is a useful index of a community's tech savviness. A necessary requirement (although obviously not a sufficient one) for Craigslist's usefulness is for a lot of web users to be in town. Low Craigslist usage says nothing abut a community, but high Craigslist usage strongly indicates that this requirement at least (among others) has been met. High Ebay usage would also indicate that, but not quite as much- since an Ebay interaction only requires one local user, and Craigslist interactions require two. Ebay is still useful to tech-savvy people who live in "non-tech-savvy" places, in a way that Craigslist is not. Craigslist's usefulness is severely impacted by where you live.
My own tech savviness has been relatively constant, and Craigslist would have been useless to me in most of the places I've lived. I would have never found the birdcage; I'd probably be stuck with a bird in a bag regardless of my basic web skills. Craigslist is useful in Silicon Valley because everyone knows that everyone else is using it, like the way Orkut is most useful to Brazilians after reaching critical mass in Brazil.
No matter how tech savvy a place is, Craigslist (or any site like it) is only going to be useful if everyone in town regularly turns to it, like a dating site. Ebay only works because it's used by large numbers of people all over the world in preference to all the auction sites you've never heard of. Craigslist sets up local connections, so other users have to be in town, but the same idea applies. The problem is getting a critical mass of local users, not navigating the actual site. Anyone with a computer and a working brainstem can do that. But you have to have a computer which already says something.
Rats, and I just bought one yesterday!
I found a lovebird hiding in a bush one day a few years ago, in a row of hedges just outside work; obviously someone's pet had escaped. I forget what I originally used to capture it; I think I got it into a paper bag and brought it in. That bird was freaked.
I went on Craigslist and found someone in the neighborhood who was advertising free bird cages that he was throwing away. So I emailed the guy and he replied with his address, saying he was leaving for work, but the cages would be out front with the trash. I went over to his house with a friend of mine and they were by the curb like he said. We took one and left.
With the bird now in its free cage I posted "FOUND LOVEBIRD" on Craigslist and a guy up the street responded. He said he kept love birds and canaries in cages outside his business (he ran a day care), and that he was missing one of his two lovebirds. A few people in the office who were in the habit of taking walks confirmed this, saying yes, they remembered seeing birds there, it's obviously one of those.
So case closed. We took our lovebird in its free cage, and walked over to this guy's business. Lovebirds don't like being alone; they want to be in pairs. And they use a species-specific call to find other lovebirds. So as we approached, the birds started "pinging" each other back and forth with this call, which became more frequent as we approached. And they went nuts in their cages as they became fully aware of each other. It was actually a pretty cool thing to see. We let our bird hop into the cage with the other one, and they started chatting with each other and flying around like mad.
The guy was puzzled, because it wasn't the same lovebird that he lost. But we left it there anyway. It worked out well for everybody. My friend and I got to skip work for a while, didn't pay for anything, the guy got his free replacement lovebird, and the replacement lovebird not only survived but found a good home with his other lovebird. All thanks to Craigslist. I hope his original lovebird also found a good home.
Their Mom: I've heard both of your extreme viewpoints, so we'll need to compromise. Bobby gets 75%, Billy gets 25%.
But that's not fair to Bobby. Bobby should get it ALL.
If Mom weren't biased in favor of Billy's socialist "75-25" plan, Bobby would be getting 87.5% at the very least.
Well, if you were to start implementing that spec at the rate of one page per hour, you'd be done in just 6000 hours.
Oh give me a home
Where the buffalo roam
And the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard
a discouraging word
and the skies are not full of spent Russian booster rockets
If the organisms die, the DNA is lethal.
Lethal to organisms that share the same set of tRNAs.
In general a tRNA set is unique to a given species although most species have similar tRNAs. But if the organisms in question were to have different ones, then their version of the same poison would have a different base sequence, as it would be translated differently from mRNA by RNA polymerase II.
So right there is a big grain of salt to take with the idea of "innately poisonous" DNA that is "incompatible with life". Everything in its proper context.
The human genome contains 3 billion base pairs which (as it's base 4) comes to about 4*(3*10^9)=12billion bits
A base 4 digit contains two bits of information, not four. 00, 01, 10, 11.
and there are roughly 280 million tadpoles in each puddle of love so actually your total data output is about 3,360,000,000,000,000,000 bits
That's wrong too. You can't just multiply by the count; each one contains a unique set of 3 billion bits which is always a different subset of the same 6 billion bits, chopped up into contiguous chunks. Unless you want to count the same information more than once if it appears in multiple places. But it's not as if each one is from a different guy.
Although I never read the information in that format since I can rely on copies that are kept elsewhere.
The grandparent is correct. This is ordinary, lawful behavior, not "scamming", since the financial history and current success of the defendants is irrelevant. If that's allowed to have anything to do with it, then something's very wrong.
I daresay you'd file a suit yourself if you held a patent that you knew several cellphone manufacturers were infringing. Most people can easily justify something like that.
If the country were only facing Texas-sized problems, this would be a good idea. Unfortunately our real problems are bigger than the ones they have in Texas.
The real problems always seem to occur when you have politicians looking for things to do, to make themselves look useful.
Look at us right now. We currently have a lot of stuff that needs doing. No politician needs to be looking very far. Just think of all the things we need to get moving on yesterday- federal budget deficits, global warming and environmental issues, water shortages, accelerating economic stratification, trade deficits, housing bubbles, energy crises, a pending transition from an oil-based economy, etc. And what has Congress been up to during this time?
This is what the 109th Congress thought was important:
- Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
- Randy Cunningham's Flag Desecration Resolution (thanks, Randy!)
- Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006
- Pledge Protection Act of 2006
- The CheeseBurger Bill
- Terri Schiavo Incapacitated Persons Protection Bill
- Independent Review of OSHA Act of 2005
And that's not even counting their legislation that actually addresses real problems but incompetently, like the Medicare prescription drug bill. The problem isn't that we have a Congress in session; it's that we elect Congresses that like to pander to us on stupid issues while Rome burns.But the 109th Congress shares your opinion that the 110th Congress is best tied up. So they closed their doors after the election without doing their mandated job of closing out their own spending bills. They left behind a half-trillion dollar mess of budget bills so that the next Congress will have to waste time unraveling all of it. Good work if you can get it.
Oops, wrong OS, duh. I read that too fast.
Actually is Adobe's reader any better on Linux, or is the crappiness specific to the Windows version?
If you ever do decide you want Acrobat again, you'll have to run the Adobe Acrobat Reader 7.0 installer. And then four more installers to climb up the versions from 7.0.1 through 7.0.8 or whatever it is now. And then the final installer to fix this vulnerability.
Or you can find the 5.0 version somewhere, from happier days. Somebody at Adobe really has their head up their ass.
I'm mounting a 30" telescreen in my living room to help the government enforce the law in my house at all times.
In case a serial killer breaks in.
There are some simple changes that some corporations are in a position to make which have great environmental impact, like when Google started pushing the PC industry to make simple 12 volt power supplies instead of inefficient ones with multiple voltage outputs. People assume that pro-environment means "expensive" but that's not necessarily the case. More and more companies are realizing that this sort of thing can be a cheap, painless way to generate good press for your organization. And after all, Wal-Mart is not really an evil company, just a money-grubbing company that deservedly gets a lot of press for doing evil things.
It's a great move by WalMart. This gets them great press with people calling them "not evil" on Slashdot and everything, and it cost them practically NOTHING.
Which would you rather work for? And if you say the local roaster, you clearly have never had an ambulance ride and multiple-day stay in the hospital. Neither have I, but I know what they cost.
There is no one "cost" to know; the screwed up American health system is notorious for charging different prices depending on who you are and whether you have employer-provided health insurance (cheapest price), health insurance you paid for yourself (ripoff prices), or no health insurance (extortion). Generally, the more you're hurting for money, the more zeroes they append to your bill.
The local roaster will also pay a much higher premium than Starbucks would have to pay for the same coverage. And if you buy health insurance yourself, instead of getting it from your employer, you run a much higher risk of having your coverage retroactively cancelled if you get sick.
But remember, best health care system in the world.
I wonder if they're going to have Nazis in this movie, now that Harrison Ford has been aging for decades.
Either the Nazis will come out of a time warp in the 1960s, or maybe they'll continue to set the movie pre-WWII and explain that Indiana aged 25 years instantly when he decided to open that box and peek inside the Ark, just for a second, with sunglasses on.
I posted two lengthy texts. The first is from the DOE reg, and the second lengthier text is a rider that was attached to unrelated congressional legislation that is supposed to act as a guide for the DOE reg in this area. It basically says the DOE should be polygraphing scientists once the Lysenkoist "Polygraph Review" committee that it defines in part 2e "reviews the scientific evidence on the polygraph of the National Academy of Sciences" and tells the government that its polygraphy is A-OK, which was probably inevitable.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 passed the House as HR 2586 and the Senate as S. 1438. While the actual policy with respect to polygraphs is established and implemented by the DOE, this rider to the Act set the parameters to guide that policy.
Although I don't think it was one of the "emergency" bills, just the yearly defense budget bill for 2002. I'm not sure our habit of having yearly defense budget emergency bills extends further back than 2003 and I'm too lazy to look it up. Still, whether it was or not, as a major defense budget allocation, it was "must-pass" legislation of the sort that often has questionable unrelated riders added- to do questionable stuff like build $200 million bridges to uninhabited parts of Alaska.
There is no scientific basis for polygraphs. Therefore they fail to meet court standards for admission of evidence. And therefore they are not admissable in court. This guy is formulating what is at least partially a legal argument as well as a scientific and political argument and so it is very relevant for him to point out the complete NAS opinion that polygraphs are not admissable in court, in addition to having no scientific basis. The NAS position he cites specifically says "beyond", not "because of". While the author does use established legal standards to support his argument in a rhetorical sense, he is not relying on them as proof of anything scientific.
I don't know where you divined the information that polygraphs fail to meet court standards for admission of evidence for any reason other than their lack of a scientific basis. Specifically, those standards keep polygraphs out of courtrooms because of their high error rate, as one would expect from a technology built on top of a pseudoscience.
As for the rest of your argument, the choice of whether or not to consent to a stupid polygraph is simply not on par with one's freedom of religion.