Did you get that out of your A$$, or thin air? You are quite incorrect.
No, actually, he is 100% correct.
2) A 20 Amp breaker trips at 20 amps.
Bullshit. That right there is so completely wrong that it makes me doubt that you're actually a master electrician--and if you are, then you certainly are not a competent one.
16 amps is the max continuous load current allowed (80%) but NOT the trip current.
16 amps is max design load allowed on the circuit by code, not the max continuous load the breaker will carry without tripping.
The problem here is that folks with the conspiracy bent end up having no way to find information that might clear up their confusion if all they are getting is wattsup or alex jones or whatever.
Your point is well-reasoned. But, unfortunately, I think you are starting from a false premise because you simply do not understand how delusions work.
We use accrual, but we reduce the invoice amount with a discount, thus dropping the revenue. We don't say we made the full amount, then drop it when we are paid.
The way I see it, the reduction in income happens at the moment of procedure (as much as the income itself does anyway), but I'm sure there are reasons and ways to legally do it other ways.
If you take the discount at invoice time, I'm sure it's legal to do exactly what you say you do. But aren't there times where the insurance payment is different than you expect? Perhaps it's easier in dentistry, due to there being fewer total procedures. But I can tell you that for physicians, they often don't know what they're actually going to be paid--in fact it's easy to find many many reports of insurance companies withholding the contract price schedules from smaller practices, in direct violation of the law.
It's interesting that you think Kathleen Sebelius is able to make better decisions about my healthcare than I am.
First off, she's not making decisions about your health care specifically, that's still up to you. She's making decisions about what care your insurer must cover.
Second off, it's not surprising at all that somebody who's immersed in the subject full-time, probably 60 hours/week, would know more than you or any other consumer with a job that doesn't involve health policy.
I can't believe you'd waste that much time typing about my health insurance and how I'm so wrong and incapable of making smart consumer decisions.
Fact is, you still don't know where the holes were in your coverage. If there were no holes, why is your price going up so much?
Fact is, you were incapable of evaluating that insurance plan fully, not only because the information necessary to do so was complex as hell, it was never even available to you! People in the medical industry see this every fucking day, people who thought they had good coverage, until they have a problem that is not covered adequately.
But still, it only took me 30 seconds or less to figure out that one major way your plan cut costs was zero prescription coverage;-) Yeah, had you gotten one of those deadly illnesses where the drug to keep you alive costs $10,000-$20,000/month and I think your opinion of your plan would have changed;-)
During the Cold War PAL's wern't intended to prevent people from starting WWIII... They were meant to prevent to use of weapons that had fallen into unfriendly hands. (Which is why the codes were set to all balls in the missile silos, and why SSBN's didn't have them.)
That's flat-out wrong. They absolutely were intended to prevent a rogue launch, and were mandated by the president of the US at the time, JFK, because he specifically wanted to prevent anyone in the military from being able to launch without his order. That the passwords were all set to "all balls", and that that code was the one that was always dialed in, was direct defiance of the order from the commander-in-chief, by military officers who resented that exercise of the president's authority.
And just to make it perfectly clear, if you are a freeloader with your hand out, go fuck yourself.
That is incoherent nonsense. If you do not have health insurance, then you are a freeloader in spirit--even if you've been lucky so far, you are deliberately putting yourself at risk of having to choose between freeloading and dying, and I'm pretty sure I know which one you'd choose. If you do have health insurance, then what do you mean you will not sign up? The signing up, the whole fricking healthcare.gov, is just for two things: getting the subsidy if you qualify, and window shopping if you want--insurance is perfectly available directly from the insurers if you don't qualify for a subsidy, also still available through brokers who have been helping people select plans for decades.
They can either book it as $167 income, with a $51 reduction to the income, or as simply $116 income...
I believe that they do not actually have a choice--because they have inventory, they are required to use accrual accounting, which I think would require they book the $167 as income when billed then separately book the $51 reduction against it when paid.
You're right of course that they still pay tax on what they're paid. (In fact I made the same point in an earlier AC post which for some reason never showed up.) But the requirements of accrual accounting lead to confusion among those ignorant of such things.
I love how all your Obama dick sucking morons think you know all there is about the healthcare industry and but don't know shit about me. You are all fucking control freaks and I hope you die a slow death from cancer.
And now that you have exposed yourself as an ignorant buffoon, we can all carry on safely with the assumption that you have no fucking idea what your insurance plan did not cover. Especially those of us who work in the medical industry and pay attention to this stuff as part of our jobs!
That's not true. At least not in my case. I was paying $165 for a better than platinum level plan.
Not true, pure and simple. Either there was a subsidy you're not aware of, or there were huge gaping holes in your coverage. And of course, you, like all consumers, would be completely unaware of the holes--after all, how exactly are you supposed to keep track of which of the 9,000 billable things doctors can do to you are covered, and for which combinations of 13,000 diagnostic codes.
You've probably never had cancer. Did you know that some employers have in the past negotiated health plans that would not cover chemotherapy on an out-patient basis? Do you realize that means for some types of cancer, you will die unnecessarily, because by the time you're sick enough to get in-patient chemo, it's too late? Yeah, see, that's the kind of surprise that ACA intends to eliminate.
You may have never been in the hospital overnight. Do you realize that there are some health insurance plans that have nice low co-pays and a fine network of doctors, which will only contribute $100/day if you're admitted to the hospital, and leave you on the hook for paying the rest of the $1,000-$10,000/day it will actually cost?
Trust me, when non-profit cooperatives in low-cost states are charging twice that much for high-deductible plans, you absolutely did not have the coverage you thought you did--and you should be glad that you never had the "opportunity" to learn that;-)
It didn't even feel that good. It merely felt adequate and long overdue.
Yep, but it's better than letting these despicable criminals go unchallenged. Anybody doing that for a living should absolutely not experience being treated politely and respectfully all day long.
A month or two ago, I was getting daily, sometimes twice-daily calls from these clowns in India. I told the first one that I knew it was a scam, and was even explaining exactly how the scam works, when I was interrupted with "I assure you this is not a scam" and practically being ordered to quit arguing and let him fix my PC.
Another time I told the guy "go fuck yourself", which was greeted with a long pause, and then "I'm sorry sir, I'm in an office right now and cannot do that here".
Another time I laid into the guy, lecturing him about being a criminal parasite, and a "worthless sack of shit" among other terms, and we got into this thing where I was cursing a blue streak while he said over and over, almost rhythmically, in that heavy Indian accent "shut up, shut up, you shut up, shut up, shut up, you shut up..."
Another time I asked the guy "do you like to fuck monkeys?", and when he responded with some confusion I explained "I was just wondering, since obviously your father fucked a monkey to make you", and then he just continued as though I had not just insulted him.
Really, it seems impossible to get these shit-filled monkey-fuckers to give up and hang up, no matter how badly you abuse them. But there is one thing I never had the patience to try... I'm not a Windows user, but I do have some Windows VMs, so I've thought that I should fire up a copy of one, follow their instructions, and when the hit me up for payment reply, "nah, instead I think I'll just delete the virtual machine we've been working in". Maybe that would actually piss them off enough to get them to hang up--you think?
Remember, this is the state where a citizen who was being harassed recorded the officer, and was convicted of a crime for breaking the state's law against recording police. This is the state where all the courts, all the way through the state supreme court, upheld that travesty.
This is also the state that pulled the same shit years later on a lawyer, who then skipped the state courts and went straight to federal court, who had very very unkind things to say about that law and the state supreme court;-)
NOBODY, especially environmentalists, have "banned controlled burns" anywhere on the planet, that's just some lunatic tea party bullshit that makes your puny brain feel good about itself. In fact over here...
Actually, over here, the US Forest Service pursued a policy of 100% fire suppression, never letting anything burn if they could stop it, for 50 fucking years. Whether or not environmentalists had any role in this, I do not know. But environmentalists have had a significant role in blocking the type of selective logging, "patch clear-cutting", which is what we need to reduce the danger and start to restore a healthy balance in western forests.
So, I'm glad that your environmentalists have played such a role in your country. But that doesn't mean ours are not idiots, and in fact on this subject most of ours are uninformed idiots.
I can see both sides of a controlled burn. Yes, it is probably the right thing to do. But the first time it got out of control and burned a bunch of houses down, the crap would hit the fan. Can you imagine the news footage of the people who's houses were burned down by a fire set intentionally by the government.
Colorado residents do not have to imagine this; we lived it this year. Homes destroyed, people dead, because the state forest service ignored its own guidelines for setting and monitoring controlled burns.
Hint: you defer the controlled burn when winds are predicted to be gusting to 60-80 m/h in the days after the burn.
Hint: when guidelines call for you to have personnel monitoring the burn site for a certain period afterward, you have the people up there at least most of the time; you do not leave it unattended for days.
Hint: when guidelines call for the personnel you send to take a source of water (in other words, small tank truck) with them, you do not send two guys in a pickup with shovels.
Hint: when guidelines say it is time to call in an emergency, and there's no phone or radio service, the two guys should abandon their shovels long enough to get to where they can call, rather than continuing to beat at individual hot spots in a gradually losing race until the thing explodes.
Whether or not they learned these lessons, we do not know, because of course the bureaucrats went into full-on defensive mode and refused to admit error, refused to out who it was that made the catastrophic decisions, and so on.
Like how your standard public roads car engine these days was designed to use pure gasoline? There's a reason that they say not to put more than E10 in a normal car.
Oh, and by the way, tests at the pump show that "E10" is often 12% - 15%, and sometimes approaches 20%.
Over the 360-month expected service life of a set of rooftop PV panels, $4.90 per month knocks $1,764 off the lifetime ROI of a grid tie. In a borderline case, this $1,764 might tip the scales between installing and not installing PV panels.
Bullshit. NPV of $1,764 spread out over the next 30 years, compared to upfront project cost, is so minor that such a "borderline" case would clearly be a case in which one should not be considering the project regardless.
Yeah, but if you actually click the link I posted, you'll see that this is a new and different product from Sta-bil, allegedly differing from regular Sta-bil by offering allegedly enhanced protection against corrosion from ethanol. Now, how much it really differs from their core product and how much more protection that difference actually provides, vs how much this is marketing hype, I have no idea...
Fuel stabilizer that keeps the gasoline from separating doesn't prevent the alcohol corrosion.
There are however fuel stabilizers on the market which claim to inhibit the alcohol corrosion. I believe these may be relatively new, since I can't recall ever seeing them before last year. FYI, here and maybe here.
His recommendation is not to use ethanol, but about the only places I can find pure gasoline are boat fuel stations on lakes (where the gas is $5+ per gallon).
Use whatever gas you want to all season. At the end of the season run it dry, put in a gallon of the good stuff, run it dry, repeat.
We are offered the choice here. Half the gas stations in town have big banners advertising "100% Real Gas". There's a difference in price per gallon, but I and several others I know have seen the hit to mileage when using ethanol gas and the small savings for ethanol gas is more than offset by the mileage hit.
Not everybody is so lucky. States have a certain amount of leeway to come up with their own ways of staying within EPA requirements regarding smog in their urban centers. The result is that in most states, 10% ethanol is an absolute requirement, with no gas station anywhere being allowed to sell 100% gasoline.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you get that out of your A$$, or thin air? You are quite incorrect.
No, actually, he is 100% correct.
2) A 20 Amp breaker trips at 20 amps.
Bullshit. That right there is so completely wrong that it makes me doubt that you're actually a master electrician--and if you are, then you certainly are not a competent one.
16 amps is the max continuous load current allowed (80%) but NOT the trip current.
16 amps is max design load allowed on the circuit by code, not the max continuous load the breaker will carry without tripping.
... 'creativity' is simply not a factor.
It absolutely, positively is a core requirement for copyright. It's in the statute, and the principle has been upheld in many, many trials.
You mean actions like embarrassing funny coloured people at an airport, or invading their country?
I've never heard of TSA targeting funny people, as long as they stay away from bomb jokes.
Oh, wait, did you mean funny-coloured people?
The problem here is that folks with the conspiracy bent end up having no way to find information that might clear up their confusion if all they are getting is wattsup or alex jones or whatever.
Your point is well-reasoned. But, unfortunately, I think you are starting from a false premise because you simply do not understand how delusions work.
We use accrual, but we reduce the invoice amount with a discount, thus dropping the revenue. We don't say we made the full amount, then drop it when we are paid.
The way I see it, the reduction in income happens at the moment of procedure (as much as the income itself does anyway), but I'm sure there are reasons and ways to legally do it other ways.
If you take the discount at invoice time, I'm sure it's legal to do exactly what you say you do. But aren't there times where the insurance payment is different than you expect? Perhaps it's easier in dentistry, due to there being fewer total procedures. But I can tell you that for physicians, they often don't know what they're actually going to be paid--in fact it's easy to find many many reports of insurance companies withholding the contract price schedules from smaller practices, in direct violation of the law.
It's interesting that you think Kathleen Sebelius is able to make better decisions about my healthcare than I am.
First off, she's not making decisions about your health care specifically, that's still up to you. She's making decisions about what care your insurer must cover.
Second off, it's not surprising at all that somebody who's immersed in the subject full-time, probably 60 hours/week, would know more than you or any other consumer with a job that doesn't involve health policy.
I can't believe you'd waste that much time typing about my health insurance and how I'm so wrong and incapable of making smart consumer decisions.
Fact is, you still don't know where the holes were in your coverage. If there were no holes, why is your price going up so much?
Fact is, you were incapable of evaluating that insurance plan fully, not only because the information necessary to do so was complex as hell, it was never even available to you! People in the medical industry see this every fucking day, people who thought they had good coverage, until they have a problem that is not covered adequately.
But still, it only took me 30 seconds or less to figure out that one major way your plan cut costs was zero prescription coverage ;-) Yeah, had you gotten one of those deadly illnesses where the drug to keep you alive costs $10,000-$20,000/month and I think your opinion of your plan would have changed ;-)
During the Cold War PAL's wern't intended to prevent people from starting WWIII... They were meant to prevent to use of weapons that had fallen into unfriendly hands. (Which is why the codes were set to all balls in the missile silos, and why SSBN's didn't have them.)
That's flat-out wrong. They absolutely were intended to prevent a rogue launch, and were mandated by the president of the US at the time, JFK, because he specifically wanted to prevent anyone in the military from being able to launch without his order. That the passwords were all set to "all balls", and that that code was the one that was always dialed in, was direct defiance of the order from the commander-in-chief, by military officers who resented that exercise of the president's authority.
Will Not Comply.
Will not sign up, will not pay for freeloaders.
And just to make it perfectly clear, if you are a freeloader with your hand out, go fuck yourself.
That is incoherent nonsense. If you do not have health insurance, then you are a freeloader in spirit--even if you've been lucky so far, you are deliberately putting yourself at risk of having to choose between freeloading and dying, and I'm pretty sure I know which one you'd choose. If you do have health insurance, then what do you mean you will not sign up? The signing up, the whole fricking healthcare.gov, is just for two things: getting the subsidy if you qualify, and window shopping if you want--insurance is perfectly available directly from the insurers if you don't qualify for a subsidy, also still available through brokers who have been helping people select plans for decades.
...now that the site works, does that mean that the law isn't flawed? Or are the people who made that argument just going to backtrack now?
Wait. WTF? You mean the same assholes who voted >40 times to repeal it even though they knew they did not have the votes to prevail?
They can either book it as $167 income, with a $51 reduction to the income, or as simply $116 income...
I believe that they do not actually have a choice--because they have inventory, they are required to use accrual accounting, which I think would require they book the $167 as income when billed then separately book the $51 reduction against it when paid.
You're right of course that they still pay tax on what they're paid. (In fact I made the same point in an earlier AC post which for some reason never showed up.) But the requirements of accrual accounting lead to confusion among those ignorant of such things.
I love how all your Obama dick sucking morons think you know all there is about the healthcare industry and but don't know shit about me. You are all fucking control freaks and I hope you die a slow death from cancer.
And now that you have exposed yourself as an ignorant buffoon, we can all carry on safely with the assumption that you have no fucking idea what your insurance plan did not cover. Especially those of us who work in the medical industry and pay attention to this stuff as part of our jobs!
That's not true. At least not in my case. I was paying $165 for a better than platinum level plan.
Not true, pure and simple. Either there was a subsidy you're not aware of, or there were huge gaping holes in your coverage. And of course, you, like all consumers, would be completely unaware of the holes--after all, how exactly are you supposed to keep track of which of the 9,000 billable things doctors can do to you are covered, and for which combinations of 13,000 diagnostic codes.
You've probably never had cancer. Did you know that some employers have in the past negotiated health plans that would not cover chemotherapy on an out-patient basis? Do you realize that means for some types of cancer, you will die unnecessarily, because by the time you're sick enough to get in-patient chemo, it's too late? Yeah, see, that's the kind of surprise that ACA intends to eliminate.
You may have never been in the hospital overnight. Do you realize that there are some health insurance plans that have nice low co-pays and a fine network of doctors, which will only contribute $100/day if you're admitted to the hospital, and leave you on the hook for paying the rest of the $1,000-$10,000/day it will actually cost?
Trust me, when non-profit cooperatives in low-cost states are charging twice that much for high-deductible plans, you absolutely did not have the coverage you thought you did--and you should be glad that you never had the "opportunity" to learn that ;-)
It didn't even feel that good. It merely felt adequate and long overdue.
Yep, but it's better than letting these despicable criminals go unchallenged. Anybody doing that for a living should absolutely not experience being treated politely and respectfully all day long.
A month or two ago, I was getting daily, sometimes twice-daily calls from these clowns in India. I told the first one that I knew it was a scam, and was even explaining exactly how the scam works, when I was interrupted with "I assure you this is not a scam" and practically being ordered to quit arguing and let him fix my PC.
Another time I told the guy "go fuck yourself", which was greeted with a long pause, and then "I'm sorry sir, I'm in an office right now and cannot do that here".
Another time I laid into the guy, lecturing him about being a criminal parasite, and a "worthless sack of shit" among other terms, and we got into this thing where I was cursing a blue streak while he said over and over, almost rhythmically, in that heavy Indian accent "shut up, shut up, you shut up, shut up, shut up, you shut up..."
Another time I asked the guy "do you like to fuck monkeys?", and when he responded with some confusion I explained "I was just wondering, since obviously your father fucked a monkey to make you", and then he just continued as though I had not just insulted him.
Really, it seems impossible to get these shit-filled monkey-fuckers to give up and hang up, no matter how badly you abuse them. But there is one thing I never had the patience to try... I'm not a Windows user, but I do have some Windows VMs, so I've thought that I should fire up a copy of one, follow their instructions, and when the hit me up for payment reply, "nah, instead I think I'll just delete the virtual machine we've been working in". Maybe that would actually piss them off enough to get them to hang up--you think?
Remember, this is the state where a citizen who was being harassed recorded the officer, and was convicted of a crime for breaking the state's law against recording police. This is the state where all the courts, all the way through the state supreme court, upheld that travesty.
This is also the state that pulled the same shit years later on a lawyer, who then skipped the state courts and went straight to federal court, who had very very unkind things to say about that law and the state supreme court ;-)
Counter-offer with a bi-lateral agreement, allowing us to put as many monitoring stations in Russia ;-)
NOBODY, especially environmentalists, have "banned controlled burns" anywhere on the planet, that's just some lunatic tea party bullshit that makes your puny brain feel good about itself. In fact over here...
Actually, over here, the US Forest Service pursued a policy of 100% fire suppression, never letting anything burn if they could stop it, for 50 fucking years. Whether or not environmentalists had any role in this, I do not know. But environmentalists have had a significant role in blocking the type of selective logging, "patch clear-cutting", which is what we need to reduce the danger and start to restore a healthy balance in western forests.
So, I'm glad that your environmentalists have played such a role in your country. But that doesn't mean ours are not idiots, and in fact on this subject most of ours are uninformed idiots.
I can see both sides of a controlled burn. Yes, it is probably the right thing to do. But the first time it got out of control and burned a bunch of houses down, the crap would hit the fan. Can you imagine the news footage of the people who's houses were burned down by a fire set intentionally by the government.
Colorado residents do not have to imagine this; we lived it this year. Homes destroyed, people dead, because the state forest service ignored its own guidelines for setting and monitoring controlled burns.
Hint: you defer the controlled burn when winds are predicted to be gusting to 60-80 m/h in the days after the burn.
Hint: when guidelines call for you to have personnel monitoring the burn site for a certain period afterward, you have the people up there at least most of the time; you do not leave it unattended for days.
Hint: when guidelines call for the personnel you send to take a source of water (in other words, small tank truck) with them, you do not send two guys in a pickup with shovels.
Hint: when guidelines say it is time to call in an emergency, and there's no phone or radio service, the two guys should abandon their shovels long enough to get to where they can call, rather than continuing to beat at individual hot spots in a gradually losing race until the thing explodes.
Whether or not they learned these lessons, we do not know, because of course the bureaucrats went into full-on defensive mode and refused to admit error, refused to out who it was that made the catastrophic decisions, and so on.
Like how your standard public roads car engine these days was designed to use pure gasoline? There's a reason that they say not to put more than E10 in a normal car.
Oh, and by the way, tests at the pump show that "E10" is often 12% - 15%, and sometimes approaches 20%.
Over the 360-month expected service life of a set of rooftop PV panels, $4.90 per month knocks $1,764 off the lifetime ROI of a grid tie. In a borderline case, this $1,764 might tip the scales between installing and not installing PV panels.
Bullshit. NPV of $1,764 spread out over the next 30 years, compared to upfront project cost, is so minor that such a "borderline" case would clearly be a case in which one should not be considering the project regardless.
Sta-bil has been around a long time...
Yeah, but if you actually click the link I posted, you'll see that this is a new and different product from Sta-bil, allegedly differing from regular Sta-bil by offering allegedly enhanced protection against corrosion from ethanol. Now, how much it really differs from their core product and how much more protection that difference actually provides, vs how much this is marketing hype, I have no idea...
... just learn to cook properly.
In other words, learn how and when to use a panade, something the French figured out a long time ago ;-)
Fuel stabilizer that keeps the gasoline from separating doesn't prevent the alcohol corrosion.
There are however fuel stabilizers on the market which claim to inhibit the alcohol corrosion. I believe these may be relatively new, since I can't recall ever seeing them before last year. FYI, here and maybe here.
His recommendation is not to use ethanol, but about the only places I can find pure gasoline are boat fuel stations on lakes (where the gas is $5+ per gallon).
Use whatever gas you want to all season. At the end of the season run it dry, put in a gallon of the good stuff, run it dry, repeat.
We are offered the choice here. Half the gas stations in town have big banners advertising "100% Real Gas". There's a difference in price per gallon, but I and several others I know have seen the hit to mileage when using ethanol gas and the small savings for ethanol gas is more than offset by the mileage hit.
Not everybody is so lucky. States have a certain amount of leeway to come up with their own ways of staying within EPA requirements regarding smog in their urban centers. The result is that in most states, 10% ethanol is an absolute requirement, with no gas station anywhere being allowed to sell 100% gasoline.