If the owners of the "closely held" company feel so morally responsible for payments to an insurance plan, why don't they feel so morally responsible for these payments, and others the company makes, that they will take them on if the company goes belly up. It seems to me the limited liability has separated the owners from these payments, they don't accept them as debt, beyond their initial investment in the company.
If they want the moral responsibility for payments made by the company they should lose the limited liability protection.
See, you argue the Hobby Lobby case for them. If they want to stick to their religious beliefs, then they must give up a protection under the law that is available to those without those beliefs. Effectively, your solution says to either chose your faith or chose the protection under the law. The SCOTUS said that one does not lose their individual rights just because of the legal form in which they chose to run their business.
So, you are saying that if a person incorporates their business to protect their family from losing their home in case there is a lawsuit or to taken advantage of the tax code, they give up their individual rights?
The courts agreed with you that the corporation isn't a person, but the individual owners are and they still have rights.
Maybe Detroit was a little reluctant to put themselves in a position of being wholly dependent on Google for such a critical system, or allowing Google to collect all that location data on all their customers completely unchecked. I can't blame them.
More likely they were concerned with who would be accountable if there were an accident.
You realize that most electric cars have a substantial battery pack. If it was as simple as opening the hood and removing a simple battery, don't you think somebody would have thought of that before you?
Somebody did. Granted, it takes 3x that 30 seconds.
That's comparing apples with oranges. NASCAR can fill a tank much quicker than the gas pump, so sure, if you want to drive up to their charging station and the attendant is standing there waiting with your battery and you does, you can get it done that quick for the right price. For the right price, you can also get it set up to be able to pull in and drive off in less time than that, including changing your tires out.
Not really, you're thinking about Politicians rather than police.
On one hand, damn all lawyers! The corporation stance is stupid legal wrangling. On the other hand, I'd never become a cop due to the incredibly ridiculous amount of liability, red tape, blatantly lying "news" channels and papers, and blame for having to enforce bad laws.
Go do some ride-alongs with your local police to see what they put up with.
It's not that the SWAT officers, their commanders, or anyone else is necessarily contriving a system where they get all the power and none of the oversight. SWAT teams are very expensive to hire, train, equip, and maintain. Hence, they need to be shared by many police districts. When the state cannot organize them any better than at the county and muni level, the solution is left up to the counties and munis to work out. And this is what they chose because it was the only thing that fit, a shared cost for shared resources.
That being said, the state really needs to intervene, now that it is painfully obvious the county/muni system doesnt work, and give them a structure (joint departments) that makes it possible. There is already too much overhead from the hundreds of different law enforcement orgs that dot each state, figuring this out is a step in the direction toward making the entire system more organized, and more accountable.
Or wait until there is a lawsuit and they want protection as a government entity. You can't have it both ways.
It would seem that before you could make a computer detect time moving backwards, you would first have to devise a way to actually make time move backwards. Running a video in reverse still occurs with time moving forward. That's nothing new. VCRs did this with a little LED. DVDs do it with an on-screen display.
Now, if they found a way to actually make time move backwards, that would be something.
But the point is not to tell if sound is moving forward or backwards.
The point is to detect if a video (possibly even without sound) is moving forward or backwards.
But you could easily mess up this program by showing it a video of Michael Jackson doing the Moonwalk.
However, whether detecting if sound or video is moving backwards or not has nothing to do with detecting if time is moving backwards or not. Playing a file backwards still occurs with time moving forwards.
It's very much related to the engine: the car is a deathtrap because the ultra-lightweight body is unsafe. If you put in the safety features and body strength needed to bring the car up to modern safety standards, that 55HP engine wouldn't cut it anymore, and your fuel economy would go down even if it did.
Modern engines produce more CO2 - that's pretty much a direct function of the amount of gasoline burned - but produce fewer other pollutants. There are an increasing number of PZEV cars out there, for example; they produce more carbon dioxide than your car, but less (effectively nothing) of everything else. In most cases that's better, environmentally speaking.
One can build a small light weight car that meets current crash standards. There are several on the market. Unfortunately they come with high or at least relatively high HP engines. Instead of a 260HP engine capable of high speed and great acceleration, a more reasonable 100hp engine would still allow for speeds upto 90mph and good acceleration. All at a significantly better mpg rating.
Additional CO2, seems to be considered problematic by many today. That's not to say the other byproducts of older engines are good, but nobody is saying to use the older design. Surely, those same design changes that allow for a large 4 cylinder engine to perform like a 6 but at better fuel economy than a 6 to be applied to making a small 4 cylinder engine also perform better.
You realize that most electric cars have a substantial battery pack. If it was as simple as opening the hood and removing a simple battery, don't you think somebody would have thought of that before you?
Your geo metro also accelerates slowly, can't carry much (all 3 square feet of storage space) and get squished in an accident because it's the size of a postage stamp.
Meanwhile, for a little less efficiency, my Honda Civic has pulled trailers across the country (added a hitch), tons of storage room and is relatively safe.
The chances of surviving a real crash in a Metro is slim to none... You go ahead and tell me how that head on crash goes for you WHEN it happens. I know I'm still walking...
I think you miss the original poster's point. Obviously safety standards have improved since the Metro came out. But really, are you thinking that having air bags and crumple zones makes a car less fuel efficient? The reason the Metro gets good mileage is that it is relatively light weight and doesn't have a high horse power engine that allows one to far exceed the design specification of the vehicle.
There is no doubt that a Honda Civic is a good car, but as for efficiency, it is more than a "little less" unless your civic gets around 50 or 60 miles per gallon. When the civic was first introduced to the US in the 70s, it was a very fuel efficient sub compact economy car. Today's Civic, while a wonderful car is not any of those things.
What causes a vehicle to be fuel efficient is aerodynamics and low weight. The engines are more fuel efficient than even a decade ago, but manufactures have used that increased efficiency to build bigger cars instead of burning less oil.
Think of a race car. It's one of the most fuel efficient vehicles made. It squeezes every bit of energy out of the fuel that there is. And yet, it gets lousy mileage (but great HP). What is more efficient in solving real world problems, creating a car that can accelerate quicker without using more fuel than it's predecessor or one that can get from point A to point B on less fuel than it's predecessor. Engineers seem to think it is the former where as scientists say we need the latter.
It's also slow, pollutes more than cars made in the 21st century, and a veritable deathtrap, but hey...
So you are saying that you need a bigger, higher fuel burning vehicle to lower pollution? As for the deathtrap, that's not really related to the engine, but the design of the vehicle itself.
Well, gasoline engines are the furthest along and they still suck. Trying to make them more efficient is a dead end, that is why hybrids appeared in first place.
Most modern gasoline engines (in cars) no longer have carburetors so technically, they can't suck but instead inject.
It certainly would seem to be a violation of HIPPA for a hospital to be giving your information out to others without your consent. Now, if the hospital is using the data collection services and doing their own comparison, cross-referencing your medical history with your collected behaviors, that might be different. It is likely, that is not what is being done, or proposed, however.
In reality, it is also unlikely that the hospital will have enough data about you. Your insurance company would be a different story, but the same HIPPA concerns would exist.
Finally, as others have pointed out, it is unlikely that this information would result in a call from your doctor. It is much more likely you would receive targeted advertising from it, once again bringing into question HIPPA.
This sounds like another candidate for the adage: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it.
Does he say what happens to agriculture in the Midwest by doing this? It would seem that if large scale wind farms can change rain patterns, a 1,000 foot wall could, too. One might even think it could have implications around the world -- the whole butterfly flapping its wings thing.
Theoretical physics is still based on the math working with known facts. The evidence is the known facts and the laws of math. Of course it may or may not be possible to construct a universe that doesn't always follow the laws of math.
No and Higgs Boson is an example of why this is so. HB was proposed and experiments done that finally confirmed it. What the original poster said was that "...it is pointless to suggest something exists if there was no evidence towards it."
Theoretical physics starts with a hypothesis and then works to find the evidence. Actually, this is not specific to theoretical physics as it is inherent in the scientific method. Suggesting something exists is called a hypothesis. One then tries to find evidence to support that hypothesis. It is anything BUT pointless to suggest something exists if there is no evidence towards it.
The other issue is to consider is long term space travel. It is likely that if space missions are for years, that people may die for any number of reasons, not just a heart attack. In addition, when people die, it usually isn't a nice clean thing. It's not just decay, which takes some time, but also that various orifices open and what they were holding back is let loose. In the closed environment of a space ship, you simply can't just mop up the mess, particularly in micro-gravity.
Obesity adds to the probability that one might experience a heart attack, but the non-obese are not immune. There are approximately 720,000 heart attacks in the US each year. But one's weight is only one risk factor and not even the largest one. Autopsies on soldiers killed in Vietnam showed that many of those 18 to 20 year olds, who were in very good physical condition had 20% blockage of their coronary arteries. Believing that heart attacks only impact the obese is why so many people ignore the signs of heart problems until it is too late to do anything about it.
There is something wrong with this story. Doctor's won't discount a TIA because the symptoms subsided. That is exactly why they are transient! The news this morning also ran this story and indicated that the doctors had originally concluded it was stressed induced (conversion reaction). The problem is if it was a conversion reaction, then the video would not disprove that. Furthermore, after seeing the video, they did an MRI and found an indication. Why was that not done originally? Standard response for a TIA is to do an MRI. Besides, if damage was now detected, it indicates she did not have a TIA but had a stroke.
I would politely disagree. Using your reasoning, artists should no longer paint (analog) because digital can capture precisely so much more detail and be manipulated in so many different ways. Yes, today's smartphones and inexpensive cameras are leaps and bounds better than an old Kodak Instamatic camera. But those are snapshots, not art. Put it this way, would Ansel Adams photographs be popular if they were done and edited digitally? After all, they are just old black and white photographs.
What separates a picture from art is the whole package, which includes how it was produced. That's why a print of a Monet is nowhere near as valuable as an actual Monet, even though the print may be a flawless in every respect.
Electronics are produced in batches. Given availability of various components, each batch will not be identical. This is nothing new. As long as the new components still meet the same specifications, the consumer hasn't been harmed. Now if the intention of the company is to build a fast model specifically for review and substitute an inferior product for the mass market, that could be fraudulent. On the other hand, at the time of review, if the current model was all built with those components, then the review is valid.
We are talking about consumer grade products here. If you buy a name brand laptop and then the identical laptop six months later, it will very likely have different chipsets and versions of roms. There are companies that will sell business grade or even military grade, where all components are guaranteed to be the same regardless of when you buy it. Those usually cost a lot more.
So is there evidence that Kingston and PNY were being fraudulent or is it simply variations between batches? What's the real story?
I'm pretty sure Google/Android have nothing to worry about. If in fact Microsoft holds valid patents that might be "Android killers" it is most likely that Google holds patents that could easily be "Windows killers." While the cold war and it's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) mentality is over, at least between the US and Russia, it is alive and well in tech companies. The difference is the US and Russia practiced MAD with nuclear bombs. Tech companies do it with patents.
Fields are a physical quantity, but not a tangible quantity. For a field to be digital, it could only have two states - on/off. Since most fields can vary or modulate, there must be some other state than on or off.
Actually, digital does not mean having just two states - that is a requirement by a binary state. Digital just means that the states are discrete.
Slashdot Mirror
If the owners of the "closely held" company feel so morally responsible for payments to an insurance plan, why don't they feel so morally responsible for these payments, and others the company makes, that they will take them on if the company goes belly up. It seems to me the limited liability has separated the owners from these payments, they don't accept them as debt, beyond their initial investment in the company.
If they want the moral responsibility for payments made by the company they should lose the limited liability protection.
See, you argue the Hobby Lobby case for them. If they want to stick to their religious beliefs, then they must give up a protection under the law that is available to those without those beliefs. Effectively, your solution says to either chose your faith or chose the protection under the law. The SCOTUS said that one does not lose their individual rights just because of the legal form in which they chose to run their business.
So, you are saying that if a person incorporates their business to protect their family from losing their home in case there is a lawsuit or to taken advantage of the tax code, they give up their individual rights?
The courts agreed with you that the corporation isn't a person, but the individual owners are and they still have rights.
Maybe Detroit was a little reluctant to put themselves in a position of being wholly dependent on Google for such a critical system, or allowing Google to collect all that location data on all their customers completely unchecked. I can't blame them.
More likely they were concerned with who would be accountable if there were an accident.
1. Unlatch side battery door.
2. Slide out weak battery.
3. Slide in fresh battery.
That's 30 seconds tops.
You realize that most electric cars have a substantial battery pack. If it was as simple as opening the hood and removing a simple battery, don't you think somebody would have thought of that before you?
http://www.teslamotors.com/bat...
Somebody did. Granted, it takes 3x that 30 seconds.
That's comparing apples with oranges. NASCAR can fill a tank much quicker than the gas pump, so sure, if you want to drive up to their charging station and the attendant is standing there waiting with your battery and you does, you can get it done that quick for the right price. For the right price, you can also get it set up to be able to pull in and drive off in less time than that, including changing your tires out.
Not really, you're thinking about Politicians rather than police.
On one hand, damn all lawyers! The corporation stance is stupid legal wrangling. On the other hand, I'd never become a cop due to the incredibly ridiculous amount of liability, red tape, blatantly lying "news" channels and papers, and blame for having to enforce bad laws.
Go do some ride-alongs with your local police to see what they put up with.
It's not that the SWAT officers, their commanders, or anyone else is necessarily contriving a system where they get all the power and none of the oversight. SWAT teams are very expensive to hire, train, equip, and maintain. Hence, they need to be shared by many police districts. When the state cannot organize them any better than at the county and muni level, the solution is left up to the counties and munis to work out. And this is what they chose because it was the only thing that fit, a shared cost for shared resources.
That being said, the state really needs to intervene, now that it is painfully obvious the county/muni system doesnt work, and give them a structure (joint departments) that makes it possible. There is already too much overhead from the hundreds of different law enforcement orgs that dot each state, figuring this out is a step in the direction toward making the entire system more organized, and more accountable.
Or wait until there is a lawsuit and they want protection as a government entity. You can't have it both ways.
It would seem that before you could make a computer detect time moving backwards, you would first have to devise a way to actually make time move backwards. Running a video in reverse still occurs with time moving forward. That's nothing new. VCRs did this with a little LED. DVDs do it with an on-screen display.
Now, if they found a way to actually make time move backwards, that would be something.
But the point is not to tell if sound is moving forward or backwards.
The point is to detect if a video (possibly even without sound) is moving forward or backwards.
But you could easily mess up this program by showing it a video of Michael Jackson doing the Moonwalk.
However, whether detecting if sound or video is moving backwards or not has nothing to do with detecting if time is moving backwards or not. Playing a file backwards still occurs with time moving forwards.
It's very much related to the engine: the car is a deathtrap because the ultra-lightweight body is unsafe. If you put in the safety features and body strength needed to bring the car up to modern safety standards, that 55HP engine wouldn't cut it anymore, and your fuel economy would go down even if it did.
Modern engines produce more CO2 - that's pretty much a direct function of the amount of gasoline burned - but produce fewer other pollutants. There are an increasing number of PZEV cars out there, for example; they produce more carbon dioxide than your car, but less (effectively nothing) of everything else. In most cases that's better, environmentally speaking.
One can build a small light weight car that meets current crash standards. There are several on the market. Unfortunately they come with high or at least relatively high HP engines. Instead of a 260HP engine capable of high speed and great acceleration, a more reasonable 100hp engine would still allow for speeds upto 90mph and good acceleration. All at a significantly better mpg rating.
Additional CO2, seems to be considered problematic by many today. That's not to say the other byproducts of older engines are good, but nobody is saying to use the older design. Surely, those same design changes that allow for a large 4 cylinder engine to perform like a 6 but at better fuel economy than a 6 to be applied to making a small 4 cylinder engine also perform better.
1. Unlatch side battery door.
2. Slide out weak battery.
3. Slide in fresh battery.
That's 30 seconds tops.
You realize that most electric cars have a substantial battery pack. If it was as simple as opening the hood and removing a simple battery, don't you think somebody would have thought of that before you?
Your geo metro also accelerates slowly, can't carry much (all 3 square feet of storage space) and get squished in an accident because it's the size of a postage stamp.
Meanwhile, for a little less efficiency, my Honda Civic has pulled trailers across the country (added a hitch), tons of storage room and is relatively safe.
The chances of surviving a real crash in a Metro is slim to none... You go ahead and tell me how that head on crash goes for you WHEN it happens. I know I'm still walking...
I think you miss the original poster's point. Obviously safety standards have improved since the Metro came out. But really, are you thinking that having air bags and crumple zones makes a car less fuel efficient? The reason the Metro gets good mileage is that it is relatively light weight and doesn't have a high horse power engine that allows one to far exceed the design specification of the vehicle.
There is no doubt that a Honda Civic is a good car, but as for efficiency, it is more than a "little less" unless your civic gets around 50 or 60 miles per gallon. When the civic was first introduced to the US in the 70s, it was a very fuel efficient sub compact economy car. Today's Civic, while a wonderful car is not any of those things.
What causes a vehicle to be fuel efficient is aerodynamics and low weight. The engines are more fuel efficient than even a decade ago, but manufactures have used that increased efficiency to build bigger cars instead of burning less oil.
Think of a race car. It's one of the most fuel efficient vehicles made. It squeezes every bit of energy out of the fuel that there is. And yet, it gets lousy mileage (but great HP). What is more efficient in solving real world problems, creating a car that can accelerate quicker without using more fuel than it's predecessor or one that can get from point A to point B on less fuel than it's predecessor. Engineers seem to think it is the former where as scientists say we need the latter.
It's also slow, pollutes more than cars made in the 21st century, and a veritable deathtrap, but hey...
So you are saying that you need a bigger, higher fuel burning vehicle to lower pollution? As for the deathtrap, that's not really related to the engine, but the design of the vehicle itself.
Well, gasoline engines are the furthest along and they still suck. Trying to make them more efficient is a dead end, that is why hybrids appeared in first place.
Most modern gasoline engines (in cars) no longer have carburetors so technically, they can't suck but instead inject.
It certainly would seem to be a violation of HIPPA for a hospital to be giving your information out to others without your consent. Now, if the hospital is using the data collection services and doing their own comparison, cross-referencing your medical history with your collected behaviors, that might be different. It is likely, that is not what is being done, or proposed, however.
In reality, it is also unlikely that the hospital will have enough data about you. Your insurance company would be a different story, but the same HIPPA concerns would exist.
Finally, as others have pointed out, it is unlikely that this information would result in a call from your doctor. It is much more likely you would receive targeted advertising from it, once again bringing into question HIPPA.
This sounds like another candidate for the adage: Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it.
Does he say what happens to agriculture in the Midwest by doing this? It would seem that if large scale wind farms can change rain patterns, a 1,000 foot wall could, too. One might even think it could have implications around the world -- the whole butterfly flapping its wings thing.
Theoretical physics is still based on the math working with known facts. The evidence is the
known facts and the laws of math. Of course it may or may not be possible to construct a
universe that doesn't always follow the laws of math.
No and Higgs Boson is an example of why this is so. HB was proposed and experiments done that finally confirmed it. What the original poster said was that "...it is pointless to suggest something exists if there was no evidence towards it."
Theoretical physics starts with a hypothesis and then works to find the evidence. Actually, this is not specific to theoretical physics as it is inherent in the scientific method. Suggesting something exists is called a hypothesis. One then tries to find evidence to support that hypothesis. It is anything BUT pointless to suggest something exists if there is no evidence towards it.
The other issue is to consider is long term space travel. It is likely that if space missions are for years, that people may die for any number of reasons, not just a heart attack. In addition, when people die, it usually isn't a nice clean thing. It's not just decay, which takes some time, but also that various orifices open and what they were holding back is let loose. In the closed environment of a space ship, you simply can't just mop up the mess, particularly in micro-gravity.
what, you mean all those obese astronauts?
Obesity adds to the probability that one might experience a heart attack, but the non-obese are not immune. There are approximately 720,000 heart attacks in the US each year. But one's weight is only one risk factor and not even the largest one. Autopsies on soldiers killed in Vietnam showed that many of those 18 to 20 year olds, who were in very good physical condition had 20% blockage of their coronary arteries. Believing that heart attacks only impact the obese is why so many people ignore the signs of heart problems until it is too late to do anything about it.
[quote]It's generally pointless to suggest that something might exist if there is no evidence towards it.[/quote]
That statement, if true, would seem to make the field of theoretical physics pointless.
There is something wrong with this story. Doctor's won't discount a TIA because the symptoms subsided. That is exactly why they are transient! The news this morning also ran this story and indicated that the doctors had originally concluded it was stressed induced (conversion reaction). The problem is if it was a conversion reaction, then the video would not disprove that. Furthermore, after seeing the video, they did an MRI and found an indication. Why was that not done originally? Standard response for a TIA is to do an MRI. Besides, if damage was now detected, it indicates she did not have a TIA but had a stroke.
Something is not quite right with this story.
The article was talking about 4K for mainstream consumers, which most likely would be closer to gamers than programmers.
Dead or alive?
DEAD!
We won't know until somebody opens the box and looks.
I would politely disagree. Using your reasoning, artists should no longer paint (analog) because digital can capture precisely so much more detail and be manipulated in so many different ways. Yes, today's smartphones and inexpensive cameras are leaps and bounds better than an old Kodak Instamatic camera. But those are snapshots, not art. Put it this way, would Ansel Adams photographs be popular if they were done and edited digitally? After all, they are just old black and white photographs.
What separates a picture from art is the whole package, which includes how it was produced. That's why a print of a Monet is nowhere near as valuable as an actual Monet, even though the print may be a flawless in every respect.
Electronics are produced in batches. Given availability of various components, each batch will not be identical. This is nothing new. As long as the new components still meet the same specifications, the consumer hasn't been harmed. Now if the intention of the company is to build a fast model specifically for review and substitute an inferior product for the mass market, that could be fraudulent. On the other hand, at the time of review, if the current model was all built with those components, then the review is valid.
We are talking about consumer grade products here. If you buy a name brand laptop and then the identical laptop six months later, it will very likely have different chipsets and versions of roms. There are companies that will sell business grade or even military grade, where all components are guaranteed to be the same regardless of when you buy it. Those usually cost a lot more.
So is there evidence that Kingston and PNY were being fraudulent or is it simply variations between batches? What's the real story?
I'm pretty sure Google/Android have nothing to worry about. If in fact Microsoft holds valid patents that might be "Android killers" it is most likely that Google holds patents that could easily be "Windows killers." While the cold war and it's Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) mentality is over, at least between the US and Russia, it is alive and well in tech companies. The difference is the US and Russia practiced MAD with nuclear bombs. Tech companies do it with patents.
Fields are a physical quantity, but not a tangible quantity. For a field to be digital, it could only have two states - on/off. Since most fields can vary or modulate, there must be some other state than on or off.
Actually, digital does not mean having just two states - that is a requirement by a binary state. Digital just means that the states are discrete.
You are correct. My mistake.