That's what the Health Insurance Exchanges are for: a way of providing deeply discounted (federally subsidized) minimal levels of insurance. The details were left up to the states, and since the mandate hasn't gone into effect yet they've put little effort into developing the exchanges. The law did push them to leverage Medicaid as a form of health insurance exchange, though the decision today struck down the part of the law that would have forced them to give you that option.
With the decision made you'll start to hear more about whatever health insurance exchange plans are being made in your state.
Sounds exactly like every other bit of lawmaking I've seen. Ignorant protesters on one side try to shout down the ignorant protesters on the other side. Even the ones who happen to be right usually don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about. The few who actually do know what they're talking about are indistinguishable from the equal-and-opposite pundits handed to their opponents, except to each other.
It's no excuse for being stupid, and I suppose I'm happy that the right side won this time. But I don't think anybody actually learned anything from it.
Especially when, as you say, the majority is slight. The government doesn't shift policy quickly, except in extreme circumstances.
The TSA is the result of one such extreme shift, and voters were decidedly in favor of it at the time. The nudie scanners and bottle bans took time to implement, but if you'd asked the public on 9/12 whether they wanted them, the answer would have been "hell yeah".
The longer we get from 9/11, the more that shifts, and will continue to shift until either (a) it finally becomes overwhelming rather than just slightly, or (b) a new terrorist attack causes a radical shift. If that attack is on an airplane, I assure you that they'll be demanding nudier scanners. If it's semtex up somebody's butthole, then people will demand cavity searches.
More likely, I think, is an attack on a softer target; in fact, I'm puzzled as to why it hasn't happened already. That might shift attention away from the airplanes, and might ironically make airplane security less onerous. But as long as the terrorists have their weird fascination with bombing airplanes, so will the TSA.
Well, the insurance costs money, and the merchants would surely rather not be paying it. Insurance smooths out the costs, so that every merchant pays a little rather than being able to directly tot up the costs of the fraud. The total paid in insurance premiums = the total cost of fraud (plus a fee).
The merchants haven't demanded an end to it yet, so apparently the cost of fraud must be down in the cost-of-doing-business range for most merchants. There are other sources of loss (shrinkage, breakage, supply chain failures) and I take it the merchants must be putting them over the cost of fraud.
But we're computer people, and we assume that if the fraud can be done cheaply, then infinite amounts will occur. If it isn't yet, it will be, one of these days.
I looked at the web site, and I thought it _was_ an Apple announcement. Spare layout, product images on white background that blend seamlessly into the page, lack of a left nav bar, big friendly sans serif type... block out the Microsoft logos and it would be hard to tell the difference between that and an Apple page.
Of course, sites could host their libraries themselves, but that would require them to keep them up to date, and it would keep them from being cached and reused across different sites.
I haven't done much work with jQuery, but in my experience library updates nearly always require somebody to at least examine the code. Something nearly always breaks.
It seems to me that maintaining jQuery must be an extraordinary responsibility. Any change to its semantics risk breaking thousands or millions of sites. And the point seems to be to be able to make it unannounced, without any assistance from those who rely on it.
It's the word "that", presumably a typo for "than", that caused the cerebral hemorrhage. Ordinarily, not a major problem, but if one is going to call somebody "stupid" it's a good idea to spell everything correctly. Otherwise, the irony can induce cerebrovascular accident.
What's decidedly unclear from the summary: they're sequencing fetal cells found in the mother's blood. It was separated from the mother's own blood cells with a nify trick using the father's DNA.
So it allows them to sequence the baby's type without having to touch the infant itself. They're not making any "mother+father=baby" predictions before the baby is conceived, which would be impossible just from their ordinary (somatic) cells.
Can I move it up to Friday? I have a false memory that I really screwed some things up last Thursday and I'd love to believe that they didn't really happen.
Absent a time machine, you can't rule out the whole thing created more than a few decades ago. For that matter, you can't rule out the entire thing being created a few minutes ago.
And even if you had a written account from 11,000 years ago, how would you verify it? There are pictorial accounts dating to over 30,000 years ago, in cave paintings; these don't seem to stop YECs any more than the rest of the evidence.
Asimov's ideas for computers seemed to revolve around the idea that they'd be too big to move around, and so they'd be placed out of the way but accessed from anywhere... what goes around comes around, apparently.
I seem to recall one story in which they megacomputer was placed in hyperspace because there just wasn't room for it anywhere else. We haven't hit that yet, but one a' these days...
The way forward is forward, with remote piloted drones. The human being is one of the most finicky parts of the plane, and the whole contraption has to be bigger, slower, and more expensive to accommodate it.
They're spending untold billions on trying to get a piloted plane to match the performance of a drone, and failing. We don't need to go back; we just need to stop being attached to an old idea. Air power changes, as do all military tactics.
Human beings are actually more important than ever, doing things that pilots can't do even in the most expensive planes: talk to people. That is incredibly hazardous, but the combination of the two is as effective a tool as we currently have.
Seems to me that it would tend to encourage affluent customers, the ones with the free cash to waste getting their favorite song on the jukebox. It's the less affluent, or at least more thrifty, customers who get driven off. And from a purely financial standpoint, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
It might fill your bar with assholes, and THAT could be a problem, but you can ban assholes with money if you want. (Unless you also want to auction off access to your bar...)
You're talking about a commons (the music being played in public). The most efficient use of a commons is to auction it off: whoever wants the next song most wins.
If the kiddies want to play Elton John over and over, and can afford to bid it up, let 'em. The owner of the place, who is the one who makes the decision about who gets to be in the bar, will be happy to have them paying $25 rather than 25 per song. If he feels badly about the construction workers being driven out, he can use the proceeds to buy them a beer wherever they end up.
There are lots of ways to implement that, including using mobile phones.
There's a saying that everybody has a plan that is simple, easy, and wrong.
Nearly everybody thinks that at least some kind of security measures are necessary for airplanes. Israel's security system is highly regarded, for example, and many people think we should switch to that. Maybe we should, but it's still going to be "The Agency that handles Security for Transportation" implementing it. You can shuffle the deck chairs and rearrange the acronyms, but it's still going to fall to the government to handle security on a national-scale operation like airplanes.
"End the TSA" has a nice populist ring, and Paul gets to glom onto it, knowing that there's absolutely zero danger of actually passing it. You don't get to just end the TSA; you replace it with something else. Pretending it's what you want is either political showmanship, counting on everybody else to find political cover for when they ignore your bill (which is never getting out of committee), or it's complete and utter ignorance of how government works.
For most politicians, I'd say it's the former. In Rand Paul's case, it could be either.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what the Health Insurance Exchanges are for: a way of providing deeply discounted (federally subsidized) minimal levels of insurance. The details were left up to the states, and since the mandate hasn't gone into effect yet they've put little effort into developing the exchanges. The law did push them to leverage Medicaid as a form of health insurance exchange, though the decision today struck down the part of the law that would have forced them to give you that option.
With the decision made you'll start to hear more about whatever health insurance exchange plans are being made in your state.
Sounds exactly like every other bit of lawmaking I've seen. Ignorant protesters on one side try to shout down the ignorant protesters on the other side. Even the ones who happen to be right usually don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about. The few who actually do know what they're talking about are indistinguishable from the equal-and-opposite pundits handed to their opponents, except to each other.
It's no excuse for being stupid, and I suppose I'm happy that the right side won this time. But I don't think anybody actually learned anything from it.
Especially when, as you say, the majority is slight. The government doesn't shift policy quickly, except in extreme circumstances.
The TSA is the result of one such extreme shift, and voters were decidedly in favor of it at the time. The nudie scanners and bottle bans took time to implement, but if you'd asked the public on 9/12 whether they wanted them, the answer would have been "hell yeah".
The longer we get from 9/11, the more that shifts, and will continue to shift until either (a) it finally becomes overwhelming rather than just slightly, or (b) a new terrorist attack causes a radical shift. If that attack is on an airplane, I assure you that they'll be demanding nudier scanners. If it's semtex up somebody's butthole, then people will demand cavity searches.
More likely, I think, is an attack on a softer target; in fact, I'm puzzled as to why it hasn't happened already. That might shift attention away from the airplanes, and might ironically make airplane security less onerous. But as long as the terrorists have their weird fascination with bombing airplanes, so will the TSA.
Well, the insurance costs money, and the merchants would surely rather not be paying it. Insurance smooths out the costs, so that every merchant pays a little rather than being able to directly tot up the costs of the fraud. The total paid in insurance premiums = the total cost of fraud (plus a fee).
The merchants haven't demanded an end to it yet, so apparently the cost of fraud must be down in the cost-of-doing-business range for most merchants. There are other sources of loss (shrinkage, breakage, supply chain failures) and I take it the merchants must be putting them over the cost of fraud.
But we're computer people, and we assume that if the fraud can be done cheaply, then infinite amounts will occur. If it isn't yet, it will be, one of these days.
I looked at the web site, and I thought it _was_ an Apple announcement. Spare layout, product images on white background that blend seamlessly into the page, lack of a left nav bar, big friendly sans serif type... block out the Microsoft logos and it would be hard to tell the difference between that and an Apple page.
Jelly much, guys?
Of course, sites could host their libraries themselves, but that would require them to keep them up to date, and it would keep them from being cached and reused across different sites.
I haven't done much work with jQuery, but in my experience library updates nearly always require somebody to at least examine the code. Something nearly always breaks.
It seems to me that maintaining jQuery must be an extraordinary responsibility. Any change to its semantics risk breaking thousands or millions of sites. And the point seems to be to be able to make it unannounced, without any assistance from those who rely on it.
It's the word "that", presumably a typo for "than", that caused the cerebral hemorrhage. Ordinarily, not a major problem, but if one is going to call somebody "stupid" it's a good idea to spell everything correctly. Otherwise, the irony can induce cerebrovascular accident.
For making yourself up a fake ID so that you can sneak into the registrar's office and hack the records?
But let's get started already.
Get started on what? Making the rest of the celestial bodies uninhabitable by humans?
Then it ain't gonna work, I imagine.
What's decidedly unclear from the summary: they're sequencing fetal cells found in the mother's blood. It was separated from the mother's own blood cells with a nify trick using the father's DNA.
So it allows them to sequence the baby's type without having to touch the infant itself. They're not making any "mother+father=baby" predictions before the baby is conceived, which would be impossible just from their ordinary (somatic) cells.
Well, I'm still not gonna ride on it.
Can I move it up to Friday? I have a false memory that I really screwed some things up last Thursday and I'd love to believe that they didn't really happen.
Absent a time machine, you can't rule out the whole thing created more than a few decades ago. For that matter, you can't rule out the entire thing being created a few minutes ago.
And even if you had a written account from 11,000 years ago, how would you verify it? There are pictorial accounts dating to over 30,000 years ago, in cave paintings; these don't seem to stop YECs any more than the rest of the evidence.
... and I should get at least partial credit for reading the hash.
Asimov's ideas for computers seemed to revolve around the idea that they'd be too big to move around, and so they'd be placed out of the way but accessed from anywhere... what goes around comes around, apparently.
I seem to recall one story in which they megacomputer was placed in hyperspace because there just wasn't room for it anywhere else. We haven't hit that yet, but one a' these days...
The way forward is forward, with remote piloted drones. The human being is one of the most finicky parts of the plane, and the whole contraption has to be bigger, slower, and more expensive to accommodate it.
They're spending untold billions on trying to get a piloted plane to match the performance of a drone, and failing. We don't need to go back; we just need to stop being attached to an old idea. Air power changes, as do all military tactics.
Human beings are actually more important than ever, doing things that pilots can't do even in the most expensive planes: talk to people. That is incredibly hazardous, but the combination of the two is as effective a tool as we currently have.
Good to know. I'm still gonna use that to chat her up if I ever see her again.
Thanks. Last year I met a woman who had these, and wanted to ask all those questions, but I was very ill and it was late and I didn't get a chance.
The one other question I had: are touch screens a problem?
Seems to me that it would tend to encourage affluent customers, the ones with the free cash to waste getting their favorite song on the jukebox. It's the less affluent, or at least more thrifty, customers who get driven off. And from a purely financial standpoint, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
It might fill your bar with assholes, and THAT could be a problem, but you can ban assholes with money if you want. (Unless you also want to auction off access to your bar...)
You're talking about a commons (the music being played in public). The most efficient use of a commons is to auction it off: whoever wants the next song most wins.
If the kiddies want to play Elton John over and over, and can afford to bid it up, let 'em. The owner of the place, who is the one who makes the decision about who gets to be in the bar, will be happy to have them paying $25 rather than 25 per song. If he feels badly about the construction workers being driven out, he can use the proceeds to buy them a beer wherever they end up.
There are lots of ways to implement that, including using mobile phones.
There's a saying that everybody has a plan that is simple, easy, and wrong.
Nearly everybody thinks that at least some kind of security measures are necessary for airplanes. Israel's security system is highly regarded, for example, and many people think we should switch to that. Maybe we should, but it's still going to be "The Agency that handles Security for Transportation" implementing it. You can shuffle the deck chairs and rearrange the acronyms, but it's still going to fall to the government to handle security on a national-scale operation like airplanes.
"End the TSA" has a nice populist ring, and Paul gets to glom onto it, knowing that there's absolutely zero danger of actually passing it. You don't get to just end the TSA; you replace it with something else. Pretending it's what you want is either political showmanship, counting on everybody else to find political cover for when they ignore your bill (which is never getting out of committee), or it's complete and utter ignorance of how government works.
For most politicians, I'd say it's the former. In Rand Paul's case, it could be either.
Interesting. Thanks.
Does VLC pay those licensing costs? Is there some sort of "free software" exemption?
I don't think you can be sexually excited about the absence of something.
Rule 34 still applies. Google "amputee porn" and you'll see just how many people get turned on by what isn't there.