What I always thought was the stupid part about using health insurance to redistribute wealth
is that it's basically like paying for other people's health insurance with a tax on... health insurance!
Not only is that recursively-stupid (making health insurance *less* affordable) it's also regressive in nature,
since poor people will spend a larger portion of their money on health insurance.
It's kind of hard to find a real winner under this scheme.
Hey look! I take "subject of TFA" plus "current events" plus "car analogy" (well, auto industry subsidy analogy) to comment on the likely future outcome of related matters, and what thanks do I get? I'm moderated down to Flamebait oblivion! How dare I imply that the government takeover of health care which our current administration seeks will be anything less than a perfect utopia? It will be so good that everyone will get an iPhone for free, not just the people with speech impediments!
There's some insight to be drawn here about the everyday partisans who are supporting the public health-care cause. I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what it is, though. In the meantime, go back and read the moderator guidelines... jerks.
Have you tried getting the Canadian | British | French | $EUROPEAN_NATION's government to cover an iPhone for a speech impediment or other similar communications-related disability? Please, try it and let us know exactly how much better socialized medicine is in this regard.
Now wait for it to be a government agency denying you instead of an insurance agency. We can replace one insensitive bureaucracy with another, equally insensitive one! Hope and... change?
It reminds me of transit benefits, and how you're only allowed to use them for getting to and from work - God forbid that we take public transit for personal trips - it would be a tragedy... also, it reminds me how the Aptera is ineligible for auto-industry loans because it only has three wheels and the law says an auto has four wheels.... at least Congress is thinking about changing that one (well, at the "this is eligible for loans" level, not the "cars have four wheels" level. ..)
-- still wondering why my health insurance can't be more like my auto insurance, where I get to pick someone who has their act together...
One of the first reasons is there's no seamless way to roam from one access point to another
Sure there is. Shell out the bucks on some decent enterprise-class APs from Cisco, Aruba, Meru, and friends instead of just tossing up a bunch of Linksys/D-Link consumer-grade widgets. It's good enough for VOIP.
Threatening oil company profits could turn a lot of 'civil servants' anti-Google.
In the Obama administration? Fat chance. They'd be more likely to throw a parade.
(And you just need to look at a DC opinion poll or two to see how much the civil servants love Obama).
Not really. It's good, proven technology. It is simple, with just a few moving parts that all move continuously in the same direction. It scales up very well: you get one big expensive steam turbine and you can point a boatload of cheap mirrors (/heat sources) at it. It takes advantage of some of the exotic properties of one of the most fascinating chemicals out there: Water. It produces no toxic waste to dispose of (not from the steam-engine part, at least... maybe a few lubricants you'll need to recycle, but that's pretty trivial). It doesn't distribute well (if you're piping hot working fluids around from one site to another, the heat tends to leak). Photovoltaics have it beat there, but they can't use all the spectrum. I suppose it doesn't scale down spectacularly well either; you might have better luck with a Stirling engine (more moving parts, though).
I don't see the big "kludge", myself. Is it the part where you hook it up to a bundle of wire and spin it around in a magnetic field to make electricity? I think that's pretty awesome too; you can move a whooole lot of electrons that way.
But fusion power is always thirty years away. Wait until it's ten years away, and then your mirrors will probably only need to last another fifty years or so.
"Honest people need to pay extra to subsidize thieves." -- why? Honest people are perfectly capable of paying the same amount of money to subsidize thieves. It's not like most the thieves were ever really going to give you money anyway. And they laugh at your DRM and attack it with 1337 h4x0ring and steal it anyway.
Their solution to keeping private data off Facebook: Put it somewhere off of Facebook!... wow, wish I thought of that. Now if only we could trust the off-of-Facebook people...
China is an aggressor and why we treat them as most favored trading partner is beyond me.
Treat them as an aggressor and there will be war and millions (of Americans, even!) might die. Treat them as a trading partner and there will be trade and millions will have manufactured goods (that they wouldn't otherwise). Not exactly a difficult decision...
Because we do invest in materials science, and chemical science, and other such fields, outside of space travel. Heck, the other day they came up with the first known magnetic monopoles, and I don't think NASA had anything to do with it. Boeing is working with titanium and advanced composites on their 787 Dreamliner (and having a rough go of it, actually). MIT is talking about liquid cathodes for fuel cells. Artificial intellegence (the useful kind, with things like computer vision) and robotics research continues apace. There are plenty of people interested in things like decent superconductors, or nuclear fusion... don't even get me started on the trendy stuff like solar power. And that's just the easy list.
Will it drop a spacecraft in your lap? Heck no! Are these technologies and those of the future likely materially improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of manned spacecraft on multiyear (or even multidecadal) missions? Big time.
Dollars or not, the opportunity costs of funding space travel are real. We could simply defer manned space exploration until such time as it becomes less expensive (due to development of superior material and construction technologies), we as a society have more resources which may be devoted to its pursuit, and the gains from its pursuit are greater than the gains from, say, building infrastructure like decent roads and water supplies in sub-Saharan Africa (and enabling basic economic development and human welfare) or replacing high-pressure sodium streetlamps with LEDs (decreasing inner-city suicide risks, saving power, reducing emissions associated with that power) or filtering the Great Pacific Garbage Patch or any of millions of other priorities.
If near-to-intermediate-term space travel development for the next few centuries really had a shadow of a chance of insuring us against the catastrophe of extinction as a species, then things would be different, and that would be a premium I'd be willing to support, but I don't think it makes sense today. If attempting to develop space travel were actually bringing about significant development of new technologies useful elsewhere - in excess of those which would occur were the money spent elsewhere, that could defray the costs, but NASA's track record, especially in recent years, is not all that spectacular, as has been noted in TFA. So why not pull the plug? Emotional reasons, mostly, I imagine...
Some Protestant denominations hold that it is merely symbolic. (One can suppose that for those groups it is, in fact, merely symbolic, whether or not it is in fact real for anyone else). Your local denomination may vary.) Your local denominations may vary. Talk to your minister if you experience any side effects, such as nausea, rash, or vaporization.
Scientology is a cult because not merely because they're "in the early stages of religion" but because they actively seek out new members with misleading tactics ("free stress test" outside the subway station downtown), to materially and forcefully disconnect those who join from the wider world around them (we approve where you can live, where you can work, and don't talk to anyone who is remotely antagonistic just shun them totally), psychoanalyze them for blackmail material and neuroses they can exploit ("auditing"), and harass and intimidate critics and those who leave the religion. They're a dangerous cult because they employ lawyers - often lots of lawyers - to attack these critics.
With regards to Christianity, the early years of the Christian church didn't really present the option for "to live by the Bible" for a few decades (it had to be written and collated), nor were Christians noted for any amount of raping/killing/enslaving until some decent-sized kingdoms decided to be Christian in their off-hours (and continued to wage war on their fellow man from time to time).
As for the sanity of Christianity -- do note that the Orthodox/Catholic/certain-Anglicans believe it's not "symbolically" eating his flesh, it's really eating his flesh (just presented as bread so that people don't totally gross out). Of course, these same groups largely don't regard the Bible as tantamount to their religion: their religion is a tradition, one which happens to maintain a certain reasonably-important book (the Bible), and therefore they are capable of being more rational about things without being "hypocrites".
And finally, who here really doubts that there is some impulse to evil present in the souls (or hearts/minds if you prefer) of all men?
All this and more I will readily believe! But the AC's criteria were more modest: "a phone we can hack LEGALLY, that doesn't have Steve Jobs giant head staring at us 24x7 telling us what we can and cannot do with it."
Slashdot Mirror
A bracelet! Much more practical than the haptic compass belt, then.
That was, in fact, informative. Not sure exactly why the question was marked flamebait, but I guess it wasn't you who went and did it, so... Thanks.
What I always thought was the stupid part about using health insurance to redistribute wealth is that it's basically like paying for other people's health insurance with a tax on... health insurance! Not only is that recursively-stupid (making health insurance *less* affordable) it's also regressive in nature, since poor people will spend a larger portion of their money on health insurance. It's kind of hard to find a real winner under this scheme.
Hey look! I take "subject of TFA" plus "current events" plus "car analogy" (well, auto industry subsidy analogy) to comment on the likely future outcome of related matters, and what thanks do I get? I'm moderated down to Flamebait oblivion! How dare I imply that the government takeover of health care which our current administration seeks will be anything less than a perfect utopia? It will be so good that everyone will get an iPhone for free, not just the people with speech impediments!
There's some insight to be drawn here about the everyday partisans who are supporting the public health-care cause. I'll leave it to you to figure out exactly what it is, though. In the meantime, go back and read the moderator guidelines... jerks.
Have you tried getting the Canadian | British | French | $EUROPEAN_NATION's government to cover an iPhone for a speech impediment or other similar communications-related disability? Please, try it and let us know exactly how much better socialized medicine is in this regard.
It reminds me of transit benefits, and how you're only allowed to use them for getting to and from work - God forbid that we take public transit for personal trips - it would be a tragedy... also, it reminds me how the Aptera is ineligible for auto-industry loans because it only has three wheels and the law says an auto has four wheels.... at least Congress is thinking about changing that one (well, at the "this is eligible for loans" level, not the "cars have four wheels" level. . .)
-- still wondering why my health insurance can't be more like my auto insurance, where I get to pick someone who has their act together...
Unfortunately, the free wifi is about the only positive feature the city of Milpitas has going for it. :)
Sure there is. Shell out the bucks on some decent enterprise-class APs from Cisco, Aruba, Meru, and friends instead of just tossing up a bunch of Linksys/D-Link consumer-grade widgets. It's good enough for VOIP.
In the Obama administration? Fat chance. They'd be more likely to throw a parade. (And you just need to look at a DC opinion poll or two to see how much the civil servants love Obama).
I don't see the big "kludge", myself. Is it the part where you hook it up to a bundle of wire and spin it around in a magnetic field to make electricity? I think that's pretty awesome too; you can move a whooole lot of electrons that way.
But fusion power is always thirty years away. Wait until it's ten years away, and then your mirrors will probably only need to last another fifty years or so.
"Honest people need to pay extra to subsidize thieves." -- why? Honest people are perfectly capable of paying the same amount of money to subsidize thieves. It's not like most the thieves were ever really going to give you money anyway. And they laugh at your DRM and attack it with 1337 h4x0ring and steal it anyway.
Their solution to keeping private data off Facebook: Put it somewhere off of Facebook! ... wow, wish I thought of that. Now if only we could trust the off-of-Facebook people...
Yeah, well, I have a Sony XEL-1, you insensitive clod!!
Treat them as an aggressor and there will be war and millions (of Americans, even!) might die. Treat them as a trading partner and there will be trade and millions will have manufactured goods (that they wouldn't otherwise). Not exactly a difficult decision...
8 billion at 8%? Have you seen what Ben Bernanke is charging banks for money these days? 0 to 0.25 percent.
Will it drop a spacecraft in your lap? Heck no! Are these technologies and those of the future likely materially improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of manned spacecraft on multiyear (or even multidecadal) missions? Big time.
If near-to-intermediate-term space travel development for the next few centuries really had a shadow of a chance of insuring us against the catastrophe of extinction as a species, then things would be different, and that would be a premium I'd be willing to support, but I don't think it makes sense today. If attempting to develop space travel were actually bringing about significant development of new technologies useful elsewhere - in excess of those which would occur were the money spent elsewhere, that could defray the costs, but NASA's track record, especially in recent years, is not all that spectacular, as has been noted in TFA. So why not pull the plug? Emotional reasons, mostly, I imagine...
Whoawhoawhoa, slow down, buddy...... right-click? You're scaring me with your crazy-talk!
Some Protestant denominations hold that it is merely symbolic. (One can suppose that for those groups it is, in fact, merely symbolic, whether or not it is in fact real for anyone else). Your local denomination may vary.) Your local denominations may vary. Talk to your minister if you experience any side effects, such as nausea, rash, or vaporization.
Scientology is a cult because not merely because they're "in the early stages of religion" but because they actively seek out new members with misleading tactics ("free stress test" outside the subway station downtown), to materially and forcefully disconnect those who join from the wider world around them (we approve where you can live, where you can work, and don't talk to anyone who is remotely antagonistic just shun them totally), psychoanalyze them for blackmail material and neuroses they can exploit ("auditing"), and harass and intimidate critics and those who leave the religion. They're a dangerous cult because they employ lawyers - often lots of lawyers - to attack these critics.
With regards to Christianity, the early years of the Christian church didn't really present the option for "to live by the Bible" for a few decades (it had to be written and collated), nor were Christians noted for any amount of raping/killing/enslaving until some decent-sized kingdoms decided to be Christian in their off-hours (and continued to wage war on their fellow man from time to time).
As for the sanity of Christianity -- do note that the Orthodox/Catholic/certain-Anglicans believe it's not "symbolically" eating his flesh, it's really eating his flesh (just presented as bread so that people don't totally gross out). Of course, these same groups largely don't regard the Bible as tantamount to their religion: their religion is a tradition, one which happens to maintain a certain reasonably-important book (the Bible), and therefore they are capable of being more rational about things without being "hypocrites".
And finally, who here really doubts that there is some impulse to evil present in the souls (or hearts/minds if you prefer) of all men?
Seriously you don't think identifying a figure in a burqua would be more difficult than identifying a female face?
All this and more I will readily believe! But the AC's criteria were more modest: "a phone we can hack LEGALLY, that doesn't have Steve Jobs giant head staring at us 24x7 telling us what we can and cannot do with it."
So, you're saying you want the HTC Dream?
I would have thought that an animal-based algorithm such as PigeonRank would be more applicable to this problem.