It's been a long, long time since I've touched a floppy disk, but I'm pretty sure the 3.5" disks like Doom came on could be set to be read only, and that was typically the case for commercial software. Now, if the disks were blanks onto which the game had been copied, that's another story. In that case chaos may have reigned.
Ah, thank you. I'm a numerical modeler myself, but I'm studying meteorology and thus generally focus on things that happen a bit more nearby and in a fluid medium. Good to know my physics BS allows me to at least ask somewhat intelligent questions about this sort of stuff, though!
It appears that the model reproduces some large scale statistical properties of the universe with reasonable accuracy. That seems reasonable. It's a far cry from being able to say "the model reproduced the Milky Way", but the statistical information by itself could very well be useful as a tool for developing new hypotheses. Of course, if the model is all wrong those hypotheses will be useless, but let's see what they can do with the data before we make that conclusion.
First off, "entire evolution of the universe" should obviously be qualified with "on cosmological scales", unless they've built the matrix. That said, how big is the domain? Is it just set to match the observable universe? 2048 grid points across the entire universe (or just the observable universe) seems rather... low-res. The TFA mentions an adaptive grid, but fails to mention what factor that can increase the local resolution by.
Also, how exactly do we model dark matter when we don't really know WTF it is beyond the fact that it has gravitational mass? Does it work because gravitational effects are the only thing that really matters on cosmological scales?
I must say I like the use of periodic boundary conditions, though, simply because it makes their simulated universe conform to the Modest Mouse lyric "The universe is shaped exactly like the earth, if you go straight long enough you end up where you were".
Nah, roman_mir is just a libertarian type... I like having a few of those around. Don't necessarily agree on a lot of the economic stuff, but it's nice to have someone complaining about the lack of respect for civil liberties among the mainstream parties.
Committed establishment Republican types? Now, there's a mystery. I've completely lost the ability to tell them apart from trolls.
It looks like someone else has taken tech like that and done something geared toward finding biomedical applications for it. The ideas and experiments in this abstract could perhaps be useful as a building block for some sort of basic tricorder. Reading the body's reaction to drugs and stress, screening neuropsych deficits, and possibly lots more by just simply scanning them with one single machine? That's Star Trek stuff.
I wonder if part of how they did this used human game play to train a neural network. A quick google of the idea makes it seem like that is plausible and has been done in at least one study, but I don't know if it is a widely used AI technique or not.
I think the people committing the violence are primarily to blame, but possibly not all. Whether or not any blame falls to those that made the film depends on their intent -- whether or not they were *hoping* for this to happen, based on the reaction seen after the Mohammed cartoon was published in the Netherlands. Reactions like this could aid their cause of trying to make people think muslims are the enemy of Judaism and Christianity. The question is whether the filmmakers are just idiots who want to run around yelling "fundamentalist islam bad, fundamentalist judeo-christianity good!", or if they are depraved enough to be hoping to incite violence to achieve their end of trying to convince people of what they are yelling.
None of this should be taken to mean that that the biggest moral failing here isn't with the people that resorted to violence in response to something someone said, but if the filmmakers were intentionally encouraging that sort of evil to occur, then they were being evil themselves.
If you look at TFA, the record low that was just surpassed was set between 2006 and 2009. The records only go back to 1979, but the previous record low was not set in 1979; rather, the trend has been downwards ever since the satellite observations began.
I'd give you about 15 minutes before you had military on your ass.
Considering that the military didn't really manage to do anything useful in the 34 minutes that elapsed between the second plane hitting the WTC and the Pentagon being struck on 9/11, I have my doubts about that estimate.
if this man really was using dynamite to fish, it sounds like he got hold of one with a very fast burning fuse, which happens when the sticks get old. He is lucky to be alive at all.
I've had enough experience with firecrackers that have fast fuses -- fast fused dynamite just sounds bad.
You misunderstand the nature of chaotic attractors such as the weather/climate system. The shape of a chaotic attractor defines the range of possible states that a system can take on. The dynamical evolution of a trajectory in the system from one state to another is chaotic, which limits predictability, but no such limitation on predictability necessarily exists for changes in the shape of the attractor itself.
Weather corresponds to a trajectory evolving on the attractor, and is thus difficult to impossible to predict on long time scales. Climate, however, corresponds to the shape of the attractor itself, so predicting evolution in the climate is a different problem than predicting the weather, and is not necessarily subject to the same limitations.
Consider the Lorenz attractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system) as a simplified example: Weather prediction is analogous to predicting x(t),y(t), and z(t), while climate prediction is analogous to predicting changes in sigma, rho, and beta. In the simplified example of the Lorenz system, even though x, y, and z are unpredictable, sigma, rho, and beta are trivial to predict -- they are constant!
Obviously, the constant parameters that define the shape of the Lorenz attractor are an oversimplified analogy for the climate problem, since we at the very least know that that climate varies, but the lesson to draw from that example is that the predictability of weather is unrelated to the predictability of climate.
Did you even bother to read the GP's post before replying to it? He dislikes the tea party and agrees that this unconstitutional stuff has been going on for decades. His only complaint about Obama is that it has continued and in some ways worsened under his watch. How in the world does that makes him a racist? Oversensitive much?
I have no doubt there are many people that dislike Obama for stupid reasons like the fact that he's black. Those people are idiots. Disliking him because he is taking liberties with the rule of law, however, isn't any less legitimate or reasonable than it was with white presidents.
OTOH, if the new guys get money fast enough, and start sending some of that money to DC, we might see some real competiton here (which will surely be the death of cable as the decades pass).
So, capitalism fails either way? I don't think "companies must lobby the government simply to be allowed to compete" sounds that much like capitalism. Unless you simply mean paying taxes, but that never seems to grant anyone the sort of treatment big media currently gets.
Partly correct. It's been years since I've had a QM class, so I'd have to dig through the wiki page for details, but Bell's Theorem states that no *local* hidden variable theory offers as complete a description of reality as traditional QM. Apparently, testable predictions can be drawn from the theorem, and so far none of the experiments done have contradicted it (although it may be rather early to call it confirmed, based on a quick look at the wiki page). In any case, none of this says anything about the possible existence of *non-local* hidden variable theories. A local hidden variable theory (IIRC) could render QM non-weird from a classical standpoint, but part of the usual QM weirdness is non-locality, so it currently appears we will be stuck with some sort of strangeness even if we find a more complete version of QM.
Not that I really blame any of you for being misinformed, BTW. In the US at least, there's been a heck of a lot of money and effort put in to misinforming people about this sort of stuff for a long time now.
If a paid lobbyist doesn't disclose the fact that they're a paid lobbyist, then yes, they're a plant. (Hint: Everyone who actually testified before the committee was a professional lobbyist too. The difference is that they disclosed that fact.)
Yes, yes, people should disclose the info when they are testifying on behalf of an activist group. I expect Ms. Fluke would agree, since she did exactly that in her testimony (starting in the very first paragraph):
I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today... [testimony continues]
From the LSRJ website:
The LSRJ National Office supports law students in their valiant efforts to gain contraceptive coverage in student health insurance; transform local policies to advance reproductive justice for marginalized populations in their communities; increase access to emergency contraception; write amici curiae briefs in domestic and international court cases; raise money for abortion funds and post-natal maternal healthcare; and recruit volunteers for clinic defense work.
So, pretty much the very first thing she said in her testimony was that she was there representing an openly "pro-abortion and pro-government paying for birth control [group]" (to put it in your words). She never tried to hide it; rather, she appears to be proud of it. Also, perhaps she has been paid by someone other that LSRJ for her activism in the past, but I don't see how that is relevant now. Should everyone be required to start their testimony by reading off their entire resume? That could take quite a while for someone nearing the end of a long career as a lobbyist.
I'm done with this conversation. If you can't see at this point why you need to actually do research for yourself instead of just listening to talk radio, you are just going to continue to be hopelessly misinformed. There are legitimate arguments about religious liberty on this issue. Unfortunately, though, talk radio has completely abandoned them in favor of demagoguery. Personally, I'd prefer health care to be uncoupled from employment, partly so that religious liberty issues don't come into play the way they have in this case.
For the large number of people posting here about how this will just turn alcoholics into LSD addicts, read some actual research. This article and the linked to study within is a good place to start: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210
Not only is LSD not addictive, it is among the safest recreational drugs known.
I've never tried it, and it isn't entirely without risks (what is?), but there really doesn't seem to be much reason to be scared of it relative to most other drugs. If it really helps with alcoholism, using it for treating that addiction would probably be a great thing both for alcoholics and society.
Ah, so you are just going to ignore the fact that there is no reason to believe the insurance companies will raise their prices for other services to cover the cost of birth control coverage. Your argument is this: The price increase is unrelated to the cost of covering birth control, but it is due to the fact that we are covering birth control. It's a non-sequitur. Oh well, if you want to live in your own little reality and avoid all available evidence (both rational and empirical at this point) that you are wrong I can't stop you.
For the record, initial media reports called her a 23 year old undergraduate senior. Being 30 disqualifies her from being 23. "They are lying to make her seem more sympathetic" where "they" means either her, her Democrat handlers, or the media doing the reporting is probably what you saw.
I've searched and searched and found no reports that she is 23. I found many, many articles claiming she was reported to be 23, but not one of them mentions a source for that claim. Oddly, many of them do quote from http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/CurrentPILS.htm where it is stated that Fluke received a BS from Cornell in 2003. Considering its presence on that page, there's clearly been no attempt to hide that info. So, according to these articles, the media's initial reporting implied that she graduated from Cornell when she was 14. That's a little silly. Perhaps someone said she was 23 at some point, but one act of incompetence does not a conspiracy make. Also, I've seen no evidence that she herself claimed to be 23. She has, however, stated that she is 30. If her "handlers" were really trying to make people believe she was 23, they should have mentioned the plan to her so she could help out.
part of her testimony was that she was "shocked" to find out (while already a student) that her Georgetown health insurance didn't cover birth control. Since she has said she went to Georgetown SPECIFICALLY to challenge this policy, that means that she lied in her press conference.
First off, testifying in front of Congress is not the same as a press conference. Second, I've read (and searched) her testimony. The word shocked is nowhere to be found. Either you are lying (and bad at it!) or you haven't done the slightest research (i.e., reading/viewing her testimony) and are just blindly repeating the lies of others.
She graduated from her undergraduate school at 22 with a degree in Gender Studies. She then used that degree to become a paid lobbyist for liberal pro-abortion and pro-government paying for birth control groups. At this point, she was a professional activist. Then she went to Georgetown to challenge this policy and get a law degree. Presumably she will continue in the field of professional activism for liberal causes once she graduates. Is her old job paying for the degree? I don't know. I know that the company I work for has a tuition repayment program, so it's entirely possible, and not even that shady.
Oh, so she's a "plant" because she's been a professional activist in addition to being a student. By your definition, almost every politician in Washington is a "plant". How exactly is it that being committed enough to her cause to get paid for it nullifies her points?
Seriously, though, you've never bought birth control? In the circles I travel in, a guy is a douche (and probably also a moron asking for drama) if he doesn't provide his own condoms.
Nice, a red herring and an ad hominem at the same time. You get double logical fallacy bonus points! We haven't been talking about condoms -- we've been talking about hormonal birth control.
Fluke said it would cost $3000 over her law school career, which is a lie.
Once again, if you had bothered to read her testimony you would know that isn't true. She said "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That statement points out that $3000 is the maximum cost. You are talking like she said it is the minimum cost. And I'm supposed to believe she is the liar?
I've heard it reported that Georgetown's insurance covers "off-label" use of birth control (i.e. to treat a disease and not just for contraception.) Most of what Fluke said in her press conference is provably misleading or an outright lie. Because it's Fluke talking about "a friend of hers" and not giv
I don't get what you are saying here. If the insurance company starts charging more for non-contraceptive items for reasons that aren't tied to the cost of providing contraceptive coverage, how exactly can contraceptive coverage be blamed for the price increase?
Re-reading your comment, it is true, you didn't say her being 30 disqualifies her as referring to herself as a student. Sorry I missed that -- I've suddenly seen her age mentioned a lot the last few days, and save for this instance every other time I've seen that it was in the context of "she's not a student/co-ed, she's a 30 year old woman!".
The point remains, though, that she is an activist and an advocate for less well off female college students, which are perfectly reasonable things for a law student to be. It is also perfectly reasonable for someone in such a position to testify in front of congress about the issue. Since she is an activist, it seems entirely possible that she may have chosen to attend Georgetown in hopes of making an effort to reform their policies. Law students are quite regularly interested in changing laws and rules to better fit their liking -- that's why there are so many politicians that are also lawyers. I'm not sure on what basis she qualifies as a democratic "plant", though. Is it just because she agrees with them on this issue, or are you saying the Democratic Party has been paying for her education so they could use her just in case an issue like this came up? That seems unlikely to happen in large part because it seems unlikely to be necessary -- plenty of liberal women agree with her positions without needing to be paid off.
Also, I'm a guy, so I've got no experience buying birth control, but if the woman Fluke testified about who lost an ovary could have easily afforded birth control, I have to imagine she would have obtained it. If I'm to believe someone let themselves lose an ovary just to make a point about contraceptive coverage, then I'm going to need much more solid evidence in favor of that than what I've seen so far, which amounts to "it's cheap, she's lying!". At any rate, to the extent cheap birth control is available, it is often only available via Planned Parenthood and Title X funding. The Republicans have long disliked funding PP, and many of them, including Romney and Santorum, want to get rid of Title X funding altogether.
Finally, not being able to afford preventative health care doesn't mean someone is stupid and helpless. It means they are poor. Hopefully you don't conflate the two.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a long, long time since I've touched a floppy disk, but I'm pretty sure the 3.5" disks like Doom came on could be set to be read only, and that was typically the case for commercial software. Now, if the disks were blanks onto which the game had been copied, that's another story. In that case chaos may have reigned.
Ah, thank you. I'm a numerical modeler myself, but I'm studying meteorology and thus generally focus on things that happen a bit more nearby and in a fluid medium. Good to know my physics BS allows me to at least ask somewhat intelligent questions about this sort of stuff, though!
It appears that the model reproduces some large scale statistical properties of the universe with reasonable accuracy. That seems reasonable. It's a far cry from being able to say "the model reproduced the Milky Way", but the statistical information by itself could very well be useful as a tool for developing new hypotheses. Of course, if the model is all wrong those hypotheses will be useless, but let's see what they can do with the data before we make that conclusion.
First off, "entire evolution of the universe" should obviously be qualified with "on cosmological scales", unless they've built the matrix. That said, how big is the domain? Is it just set to match the observable universe? 2048 grid points across the entire universe (or just the observable universe) seems rather... low-res. The TFA mentions an adaptive grid, but fails to mention what factor that can increase the local resolution by.
Also, how exactly do we model dark matter when we don't really know WTF it is beyond the fact that it has gravitational mass? Does it work because gravitational effects are the only thing that really matters on cosmological scales?
I must say I like the use of periodic boundary conditions, though, simply because it makes their simulated universe conform to the Modest Mouse lyric "The universe is shaped exactly like the earth, if you go straight long enough you end up where you were".
Nah, roman_mir is just a libertarian type... I like having a few of those around. Don't necessarily agree on a lot of the economic stuff, but it's nice to have someone complaining about the lack of respect for civil liberties among the mainstream parties.
Committed establishment Republican types? Now, there's a mystery. I've completely lost the ability to tell them apart from trolls.
Compared to the typical trolling found on the internet, this seems a bit more like harassment or stalking, no?
It looks like someone else has taken tech like that and done something geared toward finding biomedical applications for it. The ideas and experiments in this abstract could perhaps be useful as a building block for some sort of basic tricorder. Reading the body's reaction to drugs and stress, screening neuropsych deficits, and possibly lots more by just simply scanning them with one single machine? That's Star Trek stuff.
I wonder if part of how they did this used human game play to train a neural network. A quick google of the idea makes it seem like that is plausible and has been done in at least one study, but I don't know if it is a widely used AI technique or not.
I think the people committing the violence are primarily to blame, but possibly not all. Whether or not any blame falls to those that made the film depends on their intent -- whether or not they were *hoping* for this to happen, based on the reaction seen after the Mohammed cartoon was published in the Netherlands. Reactions like this could aid their cause of trying to make people think muslims are the enemy of Judaism and Christianity. The question is whether the filmmakers are just idiots who want to run around yelling "fundamentalist islam bad, fundamentalist judeo-christianity good!", or if they are depraved enough to be hoping to incite violence to achieve their end of trying to convince people of what they are yelling.
None of this should be taken to mean that that the biggest moral failing here isn't with the people that resorted to violence in response to something someone said, but if the filmmakers were intentionally encouraging that sort of evil to occur, then they were being evil themselves.
If you look at TFA, the record low that was just surpassed was set between 2006 and 2009. The records only go back to 1979, but the previous record low was not set in 1979; rather, the trend has been downwards ever since the satellite observations began.
I'd give you about 15 minutes before you had military on your ass.
Considering that the military didn't really manage to do anything useful in the 34 minutes that elapsed between the second plane hitting the WTC and the Pentagon being struck on 9/11, I have my doubts about that estimate.
if this man really was using dynamite to fish, it sounds like he got hold of one with a very fast burning fuse, which happens when the sticks get old. He is lucky to be alive at all.
I've had enough experience with firecrackers that have fast fuses -- fast fused dynamite just sounds bad.
Seems like this would be hard to do without hands...
You misunderstand the nature of chaotic attractors such as the weather/climate system. The shape of a chaotic attractor defines the range of possible states that a system can take on. The dynamical evolution of a trajectory in the system from one state to another is chaotic, which limits predictability, but no such limitation on predictability necessarily exists for changes in the shape of the attractor itself.
Weather corresponds to a trajectory evolving on the attractor, and is thus difficult to impossible to predict on long time scales. Climate, however, corresponds to the shape of the attractor itself, so predicting evolution in the climate is a different problem than predicting the weather, and is not necessarily subject to the same limitations.
Consider the Lorenz attractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system) as a simplified example: Weather prediction is analogous to predicting x(t),y(t), and z(t), while climate prediction is analogous to predicting changes in sigma, rho, and beta. In the simplified example of the Lorenz system, even though x, y, and z are unpredictable, sigma, rho, and beta are trivial to predict -- they are constant!
Obviously, the constant parameters that define the shape of the Lorenz attractor are an oversimplified analogy for the climate problem, since we at the very least know that that climate varies, but the lesson to draw from that example is that the predictability of weather is unrelated to the predictability of climate.
Did you even bother to read the GP's post before replying to it? He dislikes the tea party and agrees that this unconstitutional stuff has been going on for decades. His only complaint about Obama is that it has continued and in some ways worsened under his watch. How in the world does that makes him a racist? Oversensitive much?
I have no doubt there are many people that dislike Obama for stupid reasons like the fact that he's black. Those people are idiots. Disliking him because he is taking liberties with the rule of law, however, isn't any less legitimate or reasonable than it was with white presidents.
OTOH, if the new guys get money fast enough, and start sending some of that money to DC, we might see some real competiton here (which will surely be the death of cable as the decades pass).
So, capitalism fails either way? I don't think "companies must lobby the government simply to be allowed to compete" sounds that much like capitalism. Unless you simply mean paying taxes, but that never seems to grant anyone the sort of treatment big media currently gets.
Partly correct. It's been years since I've had a QM class, so I'd have to dig through the wiki page for details, but Bell's Theorem states that no *local* hidden variable theory offers as complete a description of reality as traditional QM. Apparently, testable predictions can be drawn from the theorem, and so far none of the experiments done have contradicted it (although it may be rather early to call it confirmed, based on a quick look at the wiki page). In any case, none of this says anything about the possible existence of *non-local* hidden variable theories. A local hidden variable theory (IIRC) could render QM non-weird from a classical standpoint, but part of the usual QM weirdness is non-locality, so it currently appears we will be stuck with some sort of strangeness even if we find a more complete version of QM.
I'm a little curious how the first post can end up at "-1, Redundant". Does that mean the mods foresaw it?
Not that I really blame any of you for being misinformed, BTW. In the US at least, there's been a heck of a lot of money and effort put in to misinforming people about this sort of stuff for a long time now.
If a paid lobbyist doesn't disclose the fact that they're a paid lobbyist, then yes, they're a plant. (Hint: Everyone who actually testified before the committee was a professional lobbyist too. The difference is that they disclosed that fact.)
Yes, yes, people should disclose the info when they are testifying on behalf of an activist group. I expect Ms. Fluke would agree, since she did exactly that in her testimony (starting in the very first paragraph):
I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and thank them for being here today.
Georgetown LSRJ is here today... [testimony continues]
From the LSRJ website:
The LSRJ National Office supports law students in their valiant efforts to gain contraceptive coverage in student health insurance; transform local policies to advance reproductive justice for marginalized populations in their communities; increase access to emergency contraception; write amici curiae briefs in domestic and international court cases; raise money for abortion funds and post-natal maternal healthcare; and recruit volunteers for clinic defense work.
So, pretty much the very first thing she said in her testimony was that she was there representing an openly "pro-abortion and pro-government paying for birth control [group]" (to put it in your words). She never tried to hide it; rather, she appears to be proud of it. Also, perhaps she has been paid by someone other that LSRJ for her activism in the past, but I don't see how that is relevant now. Should everyone be required to start their testimony by reading off their entire resume? That could take quite a while for someone nearing the end of a long career as a lobbyist.
I'm done with this conversation. If you can't see at this point why you need to actually do research for yourself instead of just listening to talk radio, you are just going to continue to be hopelessly misinformed. There are legitimate arguments about religious liberty on this issue. Unfortunately, though, talk radio has completely abandoned them in favor of demagoguery. Personally, I'd prefer health care to be uncoupled from employment, partly so that religious liberty issues don't come into play the way they have in this case.
For the large number of people posting here about how this will just turn alcoholics into LSD addicts, read some actual research. This article and the linked to study within is a good place to start: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210
Not only is LSD not addictive, it is among the safest recreational drugs known.
I've never tried it, and it isn't entirely without risks (what is?), but there really doesn't seem to be much reason to be scared of it relative to most other drugs. If it really helps with alcoholism, using it for treating that addiction would probably be a great thing both for alcoholics and society.
Ah, so you are just going to ignore the fact that there is no reason to believe the insurance companies will raise their prices for other services to cover the cost of birth control coverage. Your argument is this: The price increase is unrelated to the cost of covering birth control, but it is due to the fact that we are covering birth control. It's a non-sequitur. Oh well, if you want to live in your own little reality and avoid all available evidence (both rational and empirical at this point) that you are wrong I can't stop you.
For the record, initial media reports called her a 23 year old undergraduate senior. Being 30 disqualifies her from being 23. "They are lying to make her seem more sympathetic" where "they" means either her, her Democrat handlers, or the media doing the reporting is probably what you saw.
I've searched and searched and found no reports that she is 23. I found many, many articles claiming she was reported to be 23, but not one of them mentions a source for that claim. Oddly, many of them do quote from http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/CurrentPILS.htm where it is stated that Fluke received a BS from Cornell in 2003. Considering its presence on that page, there's clearly been no attempt to hide that info. So, according to these articles, the media's initial reporting implied that she graduated from Cornell when she was 14. That's a little silly. Perhaps someone said she was 23 at some point, but one act of incompetence does not a conspiracy make. Also, I've seen no evidence that she herself claimed to be 23. She has, however, stated that she is 30. If her "handlers" were really trying to make people believe she was 23, they should have mentioned the plan to her so she could help out.
part of her testimony was that she was "shocked" to find out (while already a student) that her Georgetown health insurance didn't cover birth control. Since she has said she went to Georgetown SPECIFICALLY to challenge this policy, that means that she lied in her press conference.
First off, testifying in front of Congress is not the same as a press conference. Second, I've read (and searched) her testimony. The word shocked is nowhere to be found. Either you are lying (and bad at it!) or you haven't done the slightest research (i.e., reading/viewing her testimony) and are just blindly repeating the lies of others.
She graduated from her undergraduate school at 22 with a degree in Gender Studies. She then used that degree to become a paid lobbyist for liberal pro-abortion and pro-government paying for birth control groups. At this point, she was a professional activist. Then she went to Georgetown to challenge this policy and get a law degree. Presumably she will continue in the field of professional activism for liberal causes once she graduates. Is her old job paying for the degree? I don't know. I know that the company I work for has a tuition repayment program, so it's entirely possible, and not even that shady.
Oh, so she's a "plant" because she's been a professional activist in addition to being a student. By your definition, almost every politician in Washington is a "plant". How exactly is it that being committed enough to her cause to get paid for it nullifies her points?
Seriously, though, you've never bought birth control? In the circles I travel in, a guy is a douche (and probably also a moron asking for drama) if he doesn't provide his own condoms.
Nice, a red herring and an ad hominem at the same time. You get double logical fallacy bonus points! We haven't been talking about condoms -- we've been talking about hormonal birth control.
Fluke said it would cost $3000 over her law school career, which is a lie.
Once again, if you had bothered to read her testimony you would know that isn't true. She said "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." That statement points out that $3000 is the maximum cost. You are talking like she said it is the minimum cost. And I'm supposed to believe she is the liar?
I've heard it reported that Georgetown's insurance covers "off-label" use of birth control (i.e. to treat a disease and not just for contraception.) Most of what Fluke said in her press conference is provably misleading or an outright lie. Because it's Fluke talking about "a friend of hers" and not giv
I don't get what you are saying here. If the insurance company starts charging more for non-contraceptive items for reasons that aren't tied to the cost of providing contraceptive coverage, how exactly can contraceptive coverage be blamed for the price increase?
Re-reading your comment, it is true, you didn't say her being 30 disqualifies her as referring to herself as a student. Sorry I missed that -- I've suddenly seen her age mentioned a lot the last few days, and save for this instance every other time I've seen that it was in the context of "she's not a student/co-ed, she's a 30 year old woman!".
The point remains, though, that she is an activist and an advocate for less well off female college students, which are perfectly reasonable things for a law student to be. It is also perfectly reasonable for someone in such a position to testify in front of congress about the issue. Since she is an activist, it seems entirely possible that she may have chosen to attend Georgetown in hopes of making an effort to reform their policies. Law students are quite regularly interested in changing laws and rules to better fit their liking -- that's why there are so many politicians that are also lawyers. I'm not sure on what basis she qualifies as a democratic "plant", though. Is it just because she agrees with them on this issue, or are you saying the Democratic Party has been paying for her education so they could use her just in case an issue like this came up? That seems unlikely to happen in large part because it seems unlikely to be necessary -- plenty of liberal women agree with her positions without needing to be paid off.
Also, I'm a guy, so I've got no experience buying birth control, but if the woman Fluke testified about who lost an ovary could have easily afforded birth control, I have to imagine she would have obtained it. If I'm to believe someone let themselves lose an ovary just to make a point about contraceptive coverage, then I'm going to need much more solid evidence in favor of that than what I've seen so far, which amounts to "it's cheap, she's lying!". At any rate, to the extent cheap birth control is available, it is often only available via Planned Parenthood and Title X funding. The Republicans have long disliked funding PP, and many of them, including Romney and Santorum, want to get rid of Title X funding altogether.
Finally, not being able to afford preventative health care doesn't mean someone is stupid and helpless. It means they are poor. Hopefully you don't conflate the two.