Oil production has been plateauing despite more drilling in even more remote areas and deeper waters, with new methods of extraction being deployed (shale fracking - it's not just for gas y'know). We keep drilling more holes just to keep up with the diminishing returns.
The quality of the crude has declined, and it's gotten so bad in the past few years that now tar sands are economically viable because there's no place else to get it.
Or did you think "peak oil" means it would all run out in one night? =Smidge=
The graph from the article really tells you nothing of value. Compare it to the output of a traditional rotary generator and it's actually kinda crap - looks about a 30% duty cycle.
Certainly there is nothing you can glean from that graph about the thermodynamic performance of the engine.
Plus, you are not getting a motion that is significantly different than sinusoidal with what is a fairly normal spring-mass-damper system. On the other hand, mechanically driven engines can have all sorts of fun motions with relatively simple modifications: The Prius, for example, uses modified valve timing to achieve an Atkinson-cycle-like profile.
If anything, you can compare it to the thermodynamic efficiency of a fuel injected 2-stroke... because that's exactly what it is. In that case, it's slightly more efficient by virtue of less mechanical loss.
The real advantage is lower part count, which cuts weight, size and cost. Couple this with a narrowly defined power band to optimize efficiency and you have something worth pursuing. If you want to increase efficiency further, maybe replace the lossy gas spring with a second combustion cylinder to get some of that bang back for your buck. =Smidge=
exactly what have any corporations done that is an abuse of the law?
Go read the article. No actual allegations have been made.
The FTC has the power to investigate and determine if abuse is occurring. If they determine that to be the case, they have the authority to rectify the situation through various means. They do not need congress' cooperation to do this.
That was my only point, but it seems your entire objection is based on a misunderstanding of what's actually going on, so... fuck me I guess. =Smidge=
Who said anything about overriding state laws? Even the comment from the FTC acknowledges general support for the laws. What's contentious is corporation's abuse of the laws.
Jesus F. Christ, this was a long walk to discover you didn't even read the summary. =Smidge=
Where does the law creating the FTC give them the power to regulate this? Please show me the wording.
15 U.S. Code 45 states "The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations [...] from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. "
15 U.S. Code 46 gives the FTC further authority to perform investigations and classify businesses for the purpose to regulating them. They also have the authority to compel corporations to file reports for various reasons.
15 U.S. Code 57a gives the FTC authority to deal with unfair business practices by creating rules.
15 U.S. Code 57b gives the FTC legal teeth if the rules they prescribe are not followed.
So the FTC has the power to investigate "dealership laws," determine if corporations are exploiting these laws in an unfair way, and act if they see fit. The FTC and the Interstate Commerce Clause meet at the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, which the FTC was essentially created to enforce and was given broad judicial, legislative, and executive powers to do so without requiring congressional action.
Now, that's not to say that Congress CAN'T step in - only that the FTC does not need their permission. Note that rules and regulations that the FTC is empowered to create and enforce are not the same as laws - Congress is still required to make new laws. =Smidge=
The law that allows the FTC to take action on the matter is the fact that they exist.
Congress does not have to address it, because Congress created the FTC to address things like this a century ago. Congress doesn't need to delegate anything because this is explicitly within the FTC's jurisdiction already. It also doesn't matter that the founding law doesn't mention specific products and services - the role of the FTC is to protect consumers.
Keep in mind that there has been nothing official from the FTC yet, but they have the power to step in and try (perhaps not successfully) to regulate, alter or annul even state-level laws that they feel are to the detriment of consumers. That is precisely the reason they exist.
And since you mentioned them, the FTC has also bumped heads with the AMA back in the 1970s for somewhat similar reasons. The AMA lost. =Smidge=
So they rig the laws in their favor, such that they aren't doing anything that's illegal by the letter of the law, and that's 100% fine? That's the only criteria? As long as they get the laws changed they can do whatever they want and you'd be totally cool with it because it's by-definition legal? No such thing as an unjust law, or even a law which is itself illegal?
What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?
And yes, the MANUFACTURERS are indeed part of it, not just the dealers. =Smidge=
So you don't think, that corporations are practicing "unfair trade practices" just because the actions of corporations are made by proxy through state government via lobbying? It's somehow not a problem if state laws allow it?
What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act? =Smidge=
It's in the state's interest because the auto dealers and manufacturers lobby to make it the state's interest. That's pretty much how government works...
Auto dealers don't want competition, especially from a seller who doesn't have the overhead of maintaining a series of brick-and-mortar shops. Manufacturers don't want competition from another manufacturer. Together they put pressure on the state governments to mold laws in such a way as to keep the competition out. =Smidge=
Dealers don't sell cars on behalf of the manufacturer, they buy the cars from the manufacturer and re-sell them.
Part of the abuses was manufacturers forcing dealers to buy cars. This enabled the manufacturers to continue making profits and claim sales numbers even though the cars never left the dealer's lots.
See also the "Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act" - 1956. =Smidge=
Just browsing through the dense wall of legalese, it seems largely related to being clear (and documented) in purpose and intent, having structured hierarchy of responsibility, good record keeping practices, providing appropriate resources (access to staff, libraries/labs, equipment etc), having clearly defined financial policies in place, making sure your faculty is competent and up to date on their subject matter, have clearly defined admission standards, etc.
I don't see anything particularly onerous in these requirements. =Smidge=
I dunno, but compliance is not necessarily a bad thing.
I want all of my electrical and electronic devices to comply with appropriate standards and regulations so they all work together and are safe to use.
I want vehicles and buildings to comply with the myriad of safety regulations.
I want my food and food preparation/handling facilities to comply with best practices.
I don't know what the BPPE requires with respect to compliance (article does not say in what way these places are not in compliance), but maybe I want that too. =Smidge=
1. There are valve assemblies on "top" of each piston assembly, and these valves are flipped back and forth by the motion of the pistons themselves.
2. The tubes are only a few inches long between valve and piston, and the valve itself vents the "off" side. At most you only need to depressurize a few inches of tubing at a time.
3. There appears to be four pistons per assembly, 16 assemblies per stack, and 4 stacks. Each piston assembly has a small crankshaft which outputs to a gear, and then each assembly in the stack combines their power via a set of gears to a shaft, and each stack contributes to the shaft. You don't have (or need) a single central crankshaft like with a typical car engine.
4. It doesn't necessarily need bearings, but it's entirely possible to make select sections that are round enough or use a series of wheels that ride in a round-enough track for support. Alternatively, the gearboxes on either end could be non-LEGO, leaving only the shaft to be built with no support required. (I suspect this is the case at least for the rear axle)
5. Each piston has a travel of ~3cm and has dick-all inertia.
6. Agreed, but there's a dropbox linked through the official site has some better photos.
Being an experiences LEGO nerd, there's nothing obvious that completely rules out such a contraption. I suspect they may have used glue on some parts, though, at the very least. =Smidge=
With a little finagling, you can print serviceable PCBs and functional transistors using the same basic machine. Not in any real quality of course, but "it technically works" proof of concept stuff so far.
But after a certain point, you're no longer printing parts but just commodity items. For example, there's no point in printing nails for a wooden frame because nails are literally cheaper than a dime a dozen to begin with. =Smidge=
More to the point: Congress has explicit authority to call upon the Militias to suppress insurrections, and so called the Militias are under the command of the President.
These are the same "Well Regulated Militias" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
So it seems rather ignorant for anyone to make claim to "2nd Amendment Solutions" as they are sometimes called, because in a strict interpretation of the US Constitution a "2nd Amendment Solution" as these people envision it would be to just shoot themselves.
The real reason for the 2nd, IMHO, is because the US is not supposed to have a professional army. That's also in the constitution: "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Instead, private citizens were explicitly allowed to keep firearms so that in the event of invasion or insurrection, we would have a ready force to deal with it until a formal army could be put together instead of having to support an army in perpetuity. =Smidge=
I guess it depends on what field you're in and what state you're licensed in.
"Drawings , specifications and other documents prepared by [consultant] are the instruments of the consultant's service and shall remain the property of [consultant], whether or not the project for which they are intended is constructed. The drawings, specifications and other documents will not be used on any other projects, additions to this project and/or for completion of this project by others, except by agreement in writing and with appropriate compensation to [consultant]."
That's a fairly standard notice that appears on nearly every drawing we produce, and similar language can be found on many blueprints.
Part of being a PE/RA means you're responsible for what you design, beyond just being fired. It's unacceptable to let someone take your design and use if without your knowledge and supervision, because if they mess it up it's your ass (not just your company, you personally) that gets sued. To that end, some consultants choose to explicitly maintain the intellectual property rights of the design documents.
And it's explicitly against the law for anyone who isn't a PE/RA to modify documents prepared and sealed by a PE/RA. =Smidge=
I get the feeling that you naively believe that an insurance company, offering different plans to different risk pools, is somehow keeping each plan's/group's finances completely separate. And it is absolutely not the case that you have some kind of account dedicated only to you, that only your money flows through, like a savings account that you can draw from when the conditions of the insurance contract are met. (I don't think you are THAT naive... but the part you put in quotes makes this worth mentioning.)
Just because you buy plan A and I buy plan B, does not mean that my money will never go to you and your money will never go to me. It just means that we pay different premiums based on our risk.
From the standpoint of the insurance company, the goal of course is to make profit. That means you WANT healthy people to pay into the system explicitly so their contributions can offset the costs of the sick people making claims against their policies. Using a healthy person's money to pay for a sick person's care (instead of your own company's money) is at the very core of the business model. =Smidge=
What you describe is already in place fro the poor and elderly; Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. They've been around a long time and they're pretty popular with everyone. There's also social security, which is essentially the same except not medically related.
I think everyone who understand what insurance actually is understands - at least implicitly - that they are subsidizing someone else. These people also understand that if they end up needing help, then others will be subsidizing them.
It real fun is when those who don't understand this end up relying on that insurance themselves and feeling just as entitled about it as they chide others for supposedly being. No sense of irony.
When it comes to healthcare and the mandate, though, you are replacing an indirect subsidy with a quite possibly cheaper direct subsidy. Indirect, because these uninsured people still cost YOU money when they get sick one way or another... usually in the form of higher costs for healthcare because the uninsured either resort to hospital emergency rooms and the expenses they can't pay end up being covered by those who can pay, or by unspecified economic costs from lost productivity or opportunity (i.e. bankruptcy from medical bills, inability to work due to illness, etc) =Smidge=
You build the next best thing which will hopefully be the right thing against $next_bad_guy
} loop until ($next_bad_guy == $your_own_countrys_citizens)
I wonder if the people who design those laser "dazzlers" and microwave emitters for "non-lethal crowd control" ever consider that their devices might be turned on innocent people by an oppressive military or police force and not just rioting mobs of enemy soldiers.
Or if the guys who worked to develop drones with offensive capabilities are worried those, too, might be turned on innocent civilians.
I'm reminded of the movie "Cube" - one of the people trapped in the machine was apparently one of the engineers who, unknowingly, helped to build it. Once he realized it he lamented that he was only doing his job, and that the client gave him specifications and he designed what they wanted. "If you do one little job, you build a widget in Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two miles under the desert, the essential component of a death machine." =Smidge=
For the first year, it's $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is more. It goes up from there, eventually being the greater of $695 or 2.5%.
I know a few people who were advised by Fox News that it made more sense to just pay the $95/yr fine instead of paying a grand or two annually for insurance. These people are in for a big surprise, because none of them make $9,500/yr or less.
A young/healthy one who has a brain would not eagerly nor voluntarily overpay in the new "insurance" (in reality, generational wealth-transfer) scheme.
Not sure what to make of this. Do you think the sick and elderly - the ones who benefit most from healthcare - aren't worth taking care of by having healthy individuals pay into insurance coffers? =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Oil production has been plateauing despite more drilling in even more remote areas and deeper waters, with new methods of extraction being deployed (shale fracking - it's not just for gas y'know). We keep drilling more holes just to keep up with the diminishing returns.
The quality of the crude has declined, and it's gotten so bad in the past few years that now tar sands are economically viable because there's no place else to get it.
Or did you think "peak oil" means it would all run out in one night?
=Smidge=
You can get the equivalent to variable compression ratio by altering valve timing; delaying the closing of the intake valve lowers compression ratio.
There are also .... unique ways to vary the stroke length given a fixed crankshaft, but that adds complexity, not reduces it.
=Smidge=
Speed limits have not been set at the federal level since 1987.
=Smidge=
The graph from the article really tells you nothing of value. Compare it to the output of a traditional rotary generator and it's actually kinda crap - looks about a 30% duty cycle.
Certainly there is nothing you can glean from that graph about the thermodynamic performance of the engine.
Plus, you are not getting a motion that is significantly different than sinusoidal with what is a fairly normal spring-mass-damper system. On the other hand, mechanically driven engines can have all sorts of fun motions with relatively simple modifications: The Prius, for example, uses modified valve timing to achieve an Atkinson-cycle-like profile.
If anything, you can compare it to the thermodynamic efficiency of a fuel injected 2-stroke... because that's exactly what it is. In that case, it's slightly more efficient by virtue of less mechanical loss.
The real advantage is lower part count, which cuts weight, size and cost. Couple this with a narrowly defined power band to optimize efficiency and you have something worth pursuing. If you want to increase efficiency further, maybe replace the lossy gas spring with a second combustion cylinder to get some of that bang back for your buck.
=Smidge=
exactly what have any corporations done that is an abuse of the law?
Go read the article. No actual allegations have been made.
The FTC has the power to investigate and determine if abuse is occurring. If they determine that to be the case, they have the authority to rectify the situation through various means. They do not need congress' cooperation to do this.
That was my only point, but it seems your entire objection is based on a misunderstanding of what's actually going on, so... fuck me I guess.
=Smidge=
Who said anything about overriding state laws? Even the comment from the FTC acknowledges general support for the laws. What's contentious is corporation's abuse of the laws.
Jesus F. Christ, this was a long walk to discover you didn't even read the summary.
=Smidge=
Where does the law creating the FTC give them the power to regulate this? Please show me the wording.
15 U.S. Code 45 states "The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations [...] from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. "
15 U.S. Code 46 gives the FTC further authority to perform investigations and classify businesses for the purpose to regulating them. They also have the authority to compel corporations to file reports for various reasons.
15 U.S. Code 57a gives the FTC authority to deal with unfair business practices by creating rules.
15 U.S. Code 57b gives the FTC legal teeth if the rules they prescribe are not followed.
So the FTC has the power to investigate "dealership laws," determine if corporations are exploiting these laws in an unfair way, and act if they see fit. The FTC and the Interstate Commerce Clause meet at the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts, which the FTC was essentially created to enforce and was given broad judicial, legislative, and executive powers to do so without requiring congressional action.
Now, that's not to say that Congress CAN'T step in - only that the FTC does not need their permission. Note that rules and regulations that the FTC is empowered to create and enforce are not the same as laws - Congress is still required to make new laws.
=Smidge=
The law that allows the FTC to take action on the matter is the fact that they exist.
Congress does not have to address it, because Congress created the FTC to address things like this a century ago. Congress doesn't need to delegate anything because this is explicitly within the FTC's jurisdiction already. It also doesn't matter that the founding law doesn't mention specific products and services - the role of the FTC is to protect consumers.
Keep in mind that there has been nothing official from the FTC yet, but they have the power to step in and try (perhaps not successfully) to regulate, alter or annul even state-level laws that they feel are to the detriment of consumers. That is precisely the reason they exist.
And since you mentioned them, the FTC has also bumped heads with the AMA back in the 1970s for somewhat similar reasons. The AMA lost.
=Smidge=
So they rig the laws in their favor, such that they aren't doing anything that's illegal by the letter of the law, and that's 100% fine? That's the only criteria? As long as they get the laws changed they can do whatever they want and you'd be totally cool with it because it's by-definition legal? No such thing as an unjust law, or even a law which is itself illegal?
What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?
And yes, the MANUFACTURERS are indeed part of it, not just the dealers.
=Smidge=
So you don't think, that corporations are practicing "unfair trade practices" just because the actions of corporations are made by proxy through state government via lobbying? It's somehow not a problem if state laws allow it?
What's your opinion on the Voting Rights Act?
=Smidge=
It's in the state's interest because the auto dealers and manufacturers lobby to make it the state's interest. That's pretty much how government works...
Auto dealers don't want competition, especially from a seller who doesn't have the overhead of maintaining a series of brick-and-mortar shops. Manufacturers don't want competition from another manufacturer. Together they put pressure on the state governments to mold laws in such a way as to keep the competition out.
=Smidge=
Dealers don't sell cars on behalf of the manufacturer, they buy the cars from the manufacturer and re-sell them.
Part of the abuses was manufacturers forcing dealers to buy cars. This enabled the manufacturers to continue making profits and claim sales numbers even though the cars never left the dealer's lots.
See also the "Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act" - 1956.
=Smidge=
The creation of the FTC is the law Congress passed in order to deal with these issues.
So yes, the FTC DOES in fact have the authority, because Congress gave it to them back in 1914.
=Smidge=
I had the same question and started clicking around. I came up with this:
http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsreg...
Just browsing through the dense wall of legalese, it seems largely related to being clear (and documented) in purpose and intent, having structured hierarchy of responsibility, good record keeping practices, providing appropriate resources (access to staff, libraries/labs, equipment etc), having clearly defined financial policies in place, making sure your faculty is competent and up to date on their subject matter, have clearly defined admission standards, etc.
I don't see anything particularly onerous in these requirements.
=Smidge=
I dunno, but compliance is not necessarily a bad thing.
I want all of my electrical and electronic devices to comply with appropriate standards and regulations so they all work together and are safe to use.
I want vehicles and buildings to comply with the myriad of safety regulations.
I want my food and food preparation/handling facilities to comply with best practices.
I don't know what the BPPE requires with respect to compliance (article does not say in what way these places are not in compliance), but maybe I want that too.
=Smidge=
"It works in Kerbal Space Program."
=Smidge=
1. There are valve assemblies on "top" of each piston assembly, and these valves are flipped back and forth by the motion of the pistons themselves.
2. The tubes are only a few inches long between valve and piston, and the valve itself vents the "off" side. At most you only need to depressurize a few inches of tubing at a time.
3. There appears to be four pistons per assembly, 16 assemblies per stack, and 4 stacks. Each piston assembly has a small crankshaft which outputs to a gear, and then each assembly in the stack combines their power via a set of gears to a shaft, and each stack contributes to the shaft. You don't have (or need) a single central crankshaft like with a typical car engine.
4. It doesn't necessarily need bearings, but it's entirely possible to make select sections that are round enough or use a series of wheels that ride in a round-enough track for support. Alternatively, the gearboxes on either end could be non-LEGO, leaving only the shaft to be built with no support required. (I suspect this is the case at least for the rear axle)
5. Each piston has a travel of ~3cm and has dick-all inertia.
6. Agreed, but there's a dropbox linked through the official site has some better photos.
Being an experiences LEGO nerd, there's nothing obvious that completely rules out such a contraption. I suspect they may have used glue on some parts, though, at the very least.
=Smidge=
With a little finagling, you can print serviceable PCBs and functional transistors using the same basic machine. Not in any real quality of course, but "it technically works" proof of concept stuff so far.
But after a certain point, you're no longer printing parts but just commodity items. For example, there's no point in printing nails for a wooden frame because nails are literally cheaper than a dime a dozen to begin with.
=Smidge=
More to the point: Congress has explicit authority to call upon the Militias to suppress insurrections, and so called the Militias are under the command of the President.
These are the same "Well Regulated Militias" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
So it seems rather ignorant for anyone to make claim to "2nd Amendment Solutions" as they are sometimes called, because in a strict interpretation of the US Constitution a "2nd Amendment Solution" as these people envision it would be to just shoot themselves.
The real reason for the 2nd, IMHO, is because the US is not supposed to have a professional army. That's also in the constitution: "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." Instead, private citizens were explicitly allowed to keep firearms so that in the event of invasion or insurrection, we would have a ready force to deal with it until a formal army could be put together instead of having to support an army in perpetuity.
=Smidge=
Vaccinations not up to date? No passport.
=Smidge=
I guess it depends on what field you're in and what state you're licensed in.
"Drawings , specifications and other documents prepared by [consultant] are the instruments of the consultant's service and shall remain the property of [consultant], whether or not the project for which they are intended is constructed. The drawings, specifications and other documents will not be used on any other projects, additions to this project and/or for completion of this project by others, except by agreement in writing and with appropriate compensation to [consultant]."
That's a fairly standard notice that appears on nearly every drawing we produce, and similar language can be found on many blueprints.
Part of being a PE/RA means you're responsible for what you design, beyond just being fired. It's unacceptable to let someone take your design and use if without your knowledge and supervision, because if they mess it up it's your ass (not just your company, you personally) that gets sued. To that end, some consultants choose to explicitly maintain the intellectual property rights of the design documents.
And it's explicitly against the law for anyone who isn't a PE/RA to modify documents prepared and sealed by a PE/RA.
=Smidge=
I get the feeling that you naively believe that an insurance company, offering different plans to different risk pools, is somehow keeping each plan's/group's finances completely separate. And it is absolutely not the case that you have some kind of account dedicated only to you, that only your money flows through, like a savings account that you can draw from when the conditions of the insurance contract are met. (I don't think you are THAT naive... but the part you put in quotes makes this worth mentioning.)
Just because you buy plan A and I buy plan B, does not mean that my money will never go to you and your money will never go to me. It just means that we pay different premiums based on our risk.
From the standpoint of the insurance company, the goal of course is to make profit. That means you WANT healthy people to pay into the system explicitly so their contributions can offset the costs of the sick people making claims against their policies. Using a healthy person's money to pay for a sick person's care (instead of your own company's money) is at the very core of the business model.
=Smidge=
What you describe is already in place fro the poor and elderly; Medicare and Medicaid, respectively. They've been around a long time and they're pretty popular with everyone. There's also social security, which is essentially the same except not medically related.
I think everyone who understand what insurance actually is understands - at least implicitly - that they are subsidizing someone else. These people also understand that if they end up needing help, then others will be subsidizing them.
It real fun is when those who don't understand this end up relying on that insurance themselves and feeling just as entitled about it as they chide others for supposedly being. No sense of irony.
When it comes to healthcare and the mandate, though, you are replacing an indirect subsidy with a quite possibly cheaper direct subsidy. Indirect, because these uninsured people still cost YOU money when they get sick one way or another... usually in the form of higher costs for healthcare because the uninsured either resort to hospital emergency rooms and the expenses they can't pay end up being covered by those who can pay, or by unspecified economic costs from lost productivity or opportunity (i.e. bankruptcy from medical bills, inability to work due to illness, etc)
=Smidge=
do
{
You build the next best thing which will hopefully be the right thing against $next_bad_guy
}
loop until ($next_bad_guy == $your_own_countrys_citizens)
I wonder if the people who design those laser "dazzlers" and microwave emitters for "non-lethal crowd control" ever consider that their devices might be turned on innocent people by an oppressive military or police force and not just rioting mobs of enemy soldiers.
Or if the guys who worked to develop drones with offensive capabilities are worried those, too, might be turned on innocent civilians.
I'm reminded of the movie "Cube" - one of the people trapped in the machine was apparently one of the engineers who, unknowingly, helped to build it. Once he realized it he lamented that he was only doing his job, and that the client gave him specifications and he designed what they wanted. "If you do one little job, you build a widget in Saskatoon, and the next thing you know, it's two miles under the desert, the essential component of a death machine."
=Smidge=
That's for year 1. It escalates from there.
Oh, it's better than that!
For the first year, it's $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is more. It goes up from there, eventually being the greater of $695 or 2.5%.
I know a few people who were advised by Fox News that it made more sense to just pay the $95/yr fine instead of paying a grand or two annually for insurance. These people are in for a big surprise, because none of them make $9,500/yr or less.
A young/healthy one who has a brain would not eagerly nor voluntarily overpay in the new "insurance" (in reality, generational wealth-transfer) scheme.
Not sure what to make of this. Do you think the sick and elderly - the ones who benefit most from healthcare - aren't worth taking care of by having healthy individuals pay into insurance coffers?
=Smidge=