Consensual sex is good. Consensual sex is fine. Consensual sex is entertaining.
The "bad' things about consensual sex, mostly including distributing media recording it -- disease, "moral" backlash, reputation damage, difference from how the external objector thinks it should be performed, perceived "offense", blatant rationalizations about agency magically not being present for the most ridiculous, transparent and obviously invalid reasons -- all of this stuff comes from outside sex. They are not sex. All of these things are things a sane person needs to defend against in both the prophylactic and immediate senses. These factors are all pernicious to immediate attacks on normality and goodness -- on sex itself -- and as such, they can be dangerous as hell.
The *one* inherent, sex-centric risk that affects just a few of the many forms of sex is that of unwanted pregnancy. Because yes, that's actually part of those (again, few) aspects of sex. And, just like the external threats, it can be defended against, so it's not a good reason to not have sex even of that kind, and of course it never was a good reason to avoid the myriad types and expressions of sex that cannot result in pregnancy.
Into this environment come the bewildered. Google's corporate overlords, like most who have gained power, seek to impose their view of what's "ok" on everyone else. In the context of this step back from the brink, Google is still way, way above the depths in terms of the violence, coercion and repression the government, religions, various corporations and the general public have established, but we have been witness to the urge growing within the Google power structure. Of course it is wonderful to see it set back somewhat, but we would be extremely gullible if we thought this was certain to be the end of it. This is a very well-trodden path.
Into this environment come the masses (but I repeat myself.) Just a few days ago, an episode of The Walking Dead aired that had the Intertubes quite upset due to content.
Now, this particular work of fiction, you have to understand, has showcased, in graphic detail, human cannibalism; murder of many stripes; suicide; extreme torture; extreme bondage; non-consensual amputation; and of course "zombies" in glorious anatomical and decaying detail. Exploding heads, severed body parts, the thrusting of limbs inside the dead, painting one's self in zombie gore, the most generous splashing of body parts and fluids in every direction and every variety you could possibly imagine (unless you think they actually missed something, and in which case, if you let the producers know, I'd bet money it shows up within a few episodes.) In play have been tanks, explosives, booby traps, fire, bacterial assault, knives, guns, imprisonment, baseball bats, swords, fingernails, martial arts... None of this so much as raises an eyebrow with the viewing public, who think it's all delightful entertainment.
So good grief, what could the content possibly be that actually got the viewers weirded out enough to speak up and get feisty? Only this: Two gay fellows sharing a kiss. Not even a particularly passionate kiss, but more of a "wow, so glad you made it through that alive" kiss.
We -- the few truly sane, the only way to honestly characterize it -- watch this kind of governmental, corporate, religious and individual pathology from outside, and I have to tell all of you, any hope that human society will ever come to its senses is extinguished in a manner I can only liken to a tidal wave rolling over a single guttering candle.
There's nothing for it. Society is sick, sick, sick. And dangerous. You all be careful out there.
When *YOU* take an action *YOU* better be ready for the reaction. Anything less makes you a victim only to yourself.
It is very well documented that the reaction people were told they would have, which was a good one, by those who should have (and did) know otherwise, is not the reaction they actually got, which was deadly.
So while I agree absolutely that we are responsible for the outcomes of choices we make for which we understand the eventual and potential outcome(s), I deny just as absolutely that we are responsible for the outcomes of choices we make when we have been deceived.
I would have no problem whatsoever voting to convict a tobacco company executive of the previous century of premeditated manslaughter by poisoning. However, at this point, we know, or we should know, how utterly stupid smoking tobacco is in the context of our health, and yes, any individual capable of informed consent who is still (or begins) smoking today can't reasonably blame that on anyone other than themselves. And as long as they don't, and don't make non-consenting persons and animals inhale the carcinogenic pollution that results, I'm all for them smoking all they want.
I would want a policy that only covers major issues with a high deductible.
I'm interested to learn that you think you can tell the future. However, since I know you can't, I will simply point out that you don't understand the actual reason for insurance, a not uncommon failing among the young who have little relevant experience with disaster. This isn't betting, where you "win" if you can guess your disease. It's not supposed to be like a slot machine. This is about risk amelioration.
...if all the young healthy families did that...
... then there would be a lot of really nasty surprises for those "young and healthy families."
See, insurance isn't about what your condition is now. Insurance is about what your condition may become. So, when kid #2 develops a lymphatic tumor under their arm, instead of "parents tried to cheap out because they had a young and healthy family and now kid #2 can't get medical care", it is "off to a cancer specialist you go, #2, because we cared enough to see to it your risks were addressed."
Funny how those who got services/money/product from the ACA legislation are happy about??
Yes, it's really strange that those who needed healthcare are glad they were finally able to get it, isn't it? Weird! Gosh! Huh! How in the world??? (cough)
And the huge fucking mountain of folks that now enjoy $5k deductibles or insurance they did not need or want are not happy about it?
There are various deductibles. You choose the one you want. If you choose a 5k deductible, you're responsible for that choice. As far as insurance that's "not needed" goes, we don't know what we need because we have no way to tell what the future brings. The only way to determine what we probably or may need is via statistics. I trust the actuaries more than I trust my own judgement. Because I'm just that smart.
Are YOU getting other peoples money?
To directly answer your question, no, thus far and at the moment, I have not and am not. I've eroded my deductible a bit, probably won't work my way through it by the end of the year, barring unseen problems. Didn't last year, either. But of course I might very much benefit from "other people's money" at some point in the future.
That said, everyone in any insurance pool anywhere, ever, who makes a claim, is "getting other people's money." That's how insurance works. Similar for taxes. We all pay in, and in the case of the ACA, those who get the subsidies get the advantage of the payout. We do that when the loads are too great and/or too random for individuals to bear: infrastructure, military, healthcare (finally!), fire services, etc.
Why the fucking hell should my doctors have to be in some "POOL" anyway?
Well, for that, you want to look to your insurance company -- not the ACA. You can get plans where the doctor doesn't have to be in a network. The ones where they do use in-network doctors are generally less expensive though, so that may effectively be your answer. But it isn't the ACA that mandates pools. It's the insurance companies, and it's always been the insurance companies.
If you prefer to pay for other peoples medical care, great. Can you help me pay for mine?
If you're in my pool, then yes, I can and do help pay for yours. Again: That's how insurance works. If I'm not paying for you in the pool (different state, or different pool) even so I'm paying for other people's there -- and I have no problem with that. Likewise, in your state, in your pool, other people are paying for you. To the extent that my federal taxes (quite significant) are paying for your subsidy, I'm happy to do that as well. It's sure oodles better than thinking about what I'm paying for WRT various other government programs.
$1400/month with a $1500 yearly deductible for each family member.
The ACA requires that insurance costs are specifically limited for low-income individuals and families and there are tax credits. If you want me on your side here, you'd have to demonstrate that your income was low and your insurance costs were high and that the ACA didn't arrange for a circumstance to reasonably ameliorate your costs. Can you do that? I'd be very interested to learn the details, short of personally identifying data.
So yeah, you are happy about getting my money, and I am an asshole for providing it to you. thanks man.
Insurance is the way that congress decided this was going to operate. Given that, yeah, I'm happy to put the related money into insurance and into taxes as it lets me know that you and yours will be covered if that's needed. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. I am pleased, however, that your feelings, as you expressed above, do not get to determine if other people get adequate healthcare.
You're assuming that the government is better at deciding what coverage you need than you are.
They didn't do all that badly. Not surprising, as it wasn't "the government", it was a group of medical and insurance professionals using statistics to determine what the needs generally encompass which congress (not Obama) incorporated into the final law. But you keep rolling with those "the government" and "Obama lied!" memes, they still sound good to the information-poor. And of course they fixed some of the other problems, like making care for pre-existing conditions practical, limiting insurance company profits, and seeing to it that family coverage was a bit more about family and a bit less about "how soon can we shuck the kids off the policies." Single payer would, of course, have been much, much better. That's what Obama wanted, btw -- the ACA is wholly a product of congress. The only sense that it is "Obama's" is in that he wanted to see people get medical care, and congress managed to get some care, to some people, and he accepted the compromise rather than walk away with nothing.
When you want to rant about "your decisions", you should really consider the reality, which was the insurance company deciding for you what would be covered. Oh, you had a migrane headache? Then we'll just slap a rider on your policy that we won't cover anything to do with your neurological system or your circulatory system, how's that for "making your own decisions"? You don't want "the government" making decisions for you, but you're perfectly ok with the for-profit insurance company limiting your care. That doesn't make you a smart insurance consumer. That makes you a tin-plated idiot.
The honest way of saying it is that many people couldn't keep their desired coverage because the government decided it wasn't good enough for them.
The honest way of saying it is if you weren't covered to the ACA minimums, your insurance sucked. There's no putting lipstick on that pig, pal. Now, as to why your insurance sucked, that could be any number of reasons -- but it still boils down to one thing: you needed better coverage. You may not admit it, you may want to gamble with your health and the health of others, but that's why we mandate some things, because people often make really bad choices for themselves, and in this case, as your health impacts others, just as your education does, a minimum has been set. Don't like it? Tough. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Just means you don't like it. Wanna change it? Go to congress -- the people who are responsible for it.
Uhh, no, if they aren't in the group of providers that your new insurance company accepts, you don't get to see him anymore. Well, you can, but you pay out of pocket full price.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. First of all, your doctor can apply to the insurance company. Second of all, you can determine which doctors are already in which groups two ways: One, by looking on the insurance company lists, two, by simply asking your doctor (or the office staff, more likely.) You can certainly end up in a situation you don't want by failing to approach this in a reasonable manner, but it's almost certainly to be on you, not the system. I ran into this specific problem -- doctor not in the specific insurance pool I wanted to use -- and it took all of two weeks to fix that, something I sussed out and took care of before I committed to the group. You can probably still fix it, for that matter.
Further, even if you did get to keep your doctor, your waiting time to see him is undoubtedly going to be much longer.
Oh, stuff and nonsense. Out of 310 million citizens, there were about 50 million uninsured. The ACA added about 10 million to the 260 million insured, thereby increasing the load on the system by a "whopping" 3.8%.
Brings to mind the Maxell ad where the guy is sitting in the chair, hair blown back by the JBL-L100 in front of him.
Imagine the paper tapes instead of the L100. Except no hair would be blowing back, and I suspect the fellow would be asleep. Other than that, exactly the same.
To answer your question about connectivity, the device has 10/100 Ethernet with the Linux networking stack built in.
That's excellent. Did you build your own protocol, or did you use the mechanism RFSPACE, Andrus, AFEDRI and the various USB-to-Ethernet servers have established?
I try -- hard -- to support all ethernet based SDRs for which I can obtain protocol information.
It also has USB-OTG, and I already know WiFi and USB Sound Cards work with no additional work.
Sound card I/Q is no problem for SdrDx -- that gets the RF in, and of course I support that. The problem with the rest is controlling the SDR's settings: center frequency, attenuator, sample rate, and so on. This is because of the radical differences in USB interfacing from platform to platform.
Having said that, if you've got a working command line utility that talks to the control systems on your SDR, then SdrDx emits information via TCP that can be used to drive the command line client from a script. We've pulled this off with the Peabody and Softrock SDRs pretty well. Again, though, we run into the issue of which platform(s) the utility is available for, seeing as how they'd have to be radically different from one another.
What's the point of a fancy SDR on the lower bands though? At least in the States most of the amateur bands with any kind of useful propagation are so narrow that one of the brain dead simple sound card SDR rigs can cover the majority of your band of choice.
This is going to be long-winded; there's quite a bit to cover. Sorry.:)
Cover, yes. Cover well, no. You need lots of bit depth for adequate dynamic range without filters, bit depth almost no one offers, and if you don't have adequate bit depth, then you really need front end filtering and probably a stepped attenuator as well. You need EM protection because HF antennas tend to be large and prone to large induced voltages. You need good frequency linearity if you want to use the SDR to get accurate measurements (even the s-meter.) For the ham bands, it's also nice if the SDR supports a sample rate of 400 khz or better, which is tough for a sound card SDR. Then there is frequency accuracy and stability, not to mention external reference sources (there all kinds of cool things you can do with a very stable SDR, like this AM graveyard band carrier forest), and then we get into multiple front ends for diversity reception and noise reduction. If you want to remote the SDR for any reason, you really need ethernet, and if you need ethernet, you need some smarts. And you need ethernet anyway, because USB bloody sucks (speaking as a cross-platform developer.) So If you want a good SDR, you just don't end up with a "brain dead simple" SDR.
As to narrow ham bands in the HF range, well, not really. 160 meters is 200 kHz. 80 meters is 500 kHz. 20 meters is 350 KHz. 15 meters is 450 kHz. 10 meters is 1.7 MHz. The WARC bands are all pretty tiny. Also, for SWL, some of those are quite wide, and even more so if you include the out of band regions where the pirates are. Pirates being quite unpredictable, you want them in the spectrum so you can see them when they pop up, so bandwidth is quite relevant if they are of interest (personally, I find them fascinating.) Come to that, if you want to see what overall prop/activity is looking like, you need 30 MHz of bandwidth to do it live.
I will grant you that someday, we may be able to put a 48 bit, multiple Gs/s A/D on a chip with a full ethernet interface cheap enough for anyone to own; but not right now. Until that day, good SDRs will not be "brain dead simple."
More on frequency range: If you want to use the SDR for a panadaptor for an existing receiver (very common use), then it has to cover one of the IF frequencies and associated bandwidth of the receiver, which tends to be in the HF range (not always, though.) Then there are cray-cray folk like myself; among other things, I use my SDR to monitor bats in our attic. To do that, the SDR has to be able to do a good job with the first 100 KHz, also true of experimentation with sonar and other audio ranging and detecting tech.
I'm not saying there isn't stuff up higher than HF; of course there is. Some of the really cool stuff (wifi, for instance) is as high as 5 GHz. Satellites, public utilities, etc. Any motion video needs to be up pretty high (but it also needs very significant bandwidth.) But HF has a huge amount of interest, it's where most hams actually hang out, and as it's a very challenging reception environment, higher end designs are of great interest. So are hackable designs one can get at. For instance, if you built yourself a multi-stage filter bank for the various HF bands, you could have them switch automatically as you tune. Likewise you could control add-on attenuators, RF preamps, and switchable transverters (which can give a nominally lower freq range SDR excellent access to higher bands.)
I have a variety of SDRs, and switching is simply a matter of prodding a menu. I have access from about 1 Hz to 3 GHz across the group, with varying features as described above. In the end,
Most hams (including myself) are interested in HF (and others are interested in SWL and the new below-AM BCB ham frequencies.)
50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes. Many of these upper bands are almost dead -- I've not heard anyone on 2 meters or 70 cm around here in the last year -- but 10 through 160 meters (28 MHz through 1.8 MHz) are busy as heck, and of course all the SW spectrum in between.
Worse, we're almost certain to be about to slide down the sunspot curve, making the already mostly dead-by-choice bands completely dead-by-nature, propagation-wise.
RFSPACE's upcoming new unit is.009 (9khz) through 50 MHz. That's a lot more attractive to me. Both to use, and to support.
Then there's funcube dongle pro plus... 50 khz through 1.8 GHz, albeit without adequate filtering up front. But it's reasonably cheap, so there's that. (and I already supported it, PITA though it was, so it's not subject to the no-more-USB-devices rule.)
Well, whatever they end up with, I sure hope it's ethernet-connected and uses the standard SDR protocol as do Andrus, AFEDRI and RFSPACE. I've supported my last black sheep USB device (every darned OS has radically different USB interfacing and requirements... building my free cross-platform SDR software is most tricky with regard to USB issues. Ethernet, by comparison, is almost identical on all platforms -- the same SDR protocol / interfacing code works fine across linux, Windows and OS X.)
Keep the Jehovahs and Mormons from getting in the house. Bonus if it can hold off people pushing meritless products. But I repeat myself.
As for serving drinks or drugs, the damn things should do what they're told. I don't need robots to take agency from me. Lard knows the frigging government is spending more than enough effort on that already. For me personally, all I have to say is "I already have (had) a mother, and her last bit of authority over me expired in 1977."
First time a (non-conscious) robot refused to do what I told it to, presuming only it was within its comprehension and skill set, I think I'd take a hammer to it.
Look. The only reason you wouldn't be able to keep your insurance that the ACA could even *vaguely* be named responsible for is if it was so bad that it didn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA, and your insurance company didn't upgrade the policy accordingly -- most likely, they cancelled it in favor of new policies that *did* meet the minimum requirements. The whole *point* of the ACA was to see to it that people were *sufficiently* insured.
Otherwise, the only reasons you would lose your current insurance would be if the insurance company cancelled your policy -- and in that case, the blame lands squarely on the insurance company; or your employer decided to take the opportunity to cut your benefits and blame it on the ACA. In that case, look to your employer.
As for your doctor, the only ACA-related reason you might not be able to keep your doctor is if they don't bother to register with the pool you chose -- and all you have to do there is tell your doctor which one it is. And if they fail to register, you can blame your doctor. My doctor did the right thing, and she's still my doctor. I specifically asked, and she said there was almost nothing to it.
Now, let's look this issue right in the face. Are there conditions where you couldn't keep your doctor? Sure. For instance, if your doctor got run over by a bus. Or retired. Or committed suicide. Or moved to Botswana. Or switched jobs. So "Obama lied", right? But of course, if you're a sane person and not trying to shill your way through a bout of Obama-hate, you would understand that there will be some exceptions, and generally, they're going to be related to the doctor's circumstance -- just as the bus incident would be. Because there isn't one damn thing in the ACA that says "this here doctor can't be used."
As with the previous poster, my circumstances were enormously improved by the ACA. I did get to keep my doctor (it was no problem at all, she just did a little paperwork, that was it) and my coverage is now excellent.
Is everything perfect? No. Republicans are blocking the medicaid expansion here, so many no- and low-income individuals who were intended to be covered by the ACA, aren't. While this goes on, the taxes we paid here to cover them go to another state as the already-allocated funds are disbursed elsewhere. Consequently, our medical and insurance costs here are rising because we are paying the hospitals for uncompensated care for people who should have been covered, and for which the funds were already allocated.
Perhaps it should be the job of the president. Oh, that'd stir up the hornet's nest a bit.:)
Executive order #xxx: congressman Ex P. Facto, supporter of the Add Punishment After Conviction bill (APAC, HR 666), goes home to [State] today, never to return to legislative service. [State], if you want representation this term, time for an off-season election. Try a little harder so you pick someone who can read this time around, and see to it that they read and understand that thing they swear an oath to.
We don't need a vague demand for justice, but an actual accountable process for determining and doing away with unconstitutional laws.
Well, see, if we say you are forbidden from doing X, and you do X, and we do nothing, what we have done is set up a situation where when forbidden from doing Y, you will see absolutely no reason not to do Y, too. Welcome to the US state and federal legislatures.
To these people, no does not mean no. Because they are sophist bullshit artists. And we won't show them no does mean no. So that's the end of it.
If the citizens cared, any number of means could be provided. But frankly, no one cares. The number of people I have met who actually know what the constitution says is appallingly small. We live in a corporate oligarchy inside a banana dictatorship shell, in the main populated with ignorant couch potatoes.
except for the part where legislators that pass unconstitutional laws are punished
Yeah... the part that might have made it work.:/ Instead, they just arrogated article 5 powers unto themselves, also without oversight (and they have used that freedom from oversight to outright ignore the constitution over and over again.)
You notice how laws have consequences? And that's the basis, we hope anyway, for people to obey them even if they'd like to disobey? Notice that the laws, supposedly the highest in the land, in the constitution have zero punishment / teeth? You know why that was? Because people were expected to act with honor in public service. Good grief, what an error that was.
There are only three ways you can easily kill someone with pot.
First, put them in jail. Rape and murder are potential outcomes. Then, once released as a felon, suicide may get them when they find the doors of (legal) opportunity have closed and they are permanently ranked lowest-class-irredeemable by society's permanent retribution stick. Finally, if they try to make it in the underground economy, the system will likely get another whack at them in its rape-and-murder parlors. Also, as the government has created a violent black market in pot with its laws, competition in the underground economy is also a potential source of death.
Second, stuff enough pot into their windpipe to completely block their breathing. That'll do it.
Third, drop a 100 kg bale of pot on their head from about 100 meters above. That'll do it pretty much every time. See? Pot can be dangerous.
There are other ways, but they are more difficult to set up and generally require many bales of pot and restraint of the victim.
That is NOT the responsibility of the individual. It is the responsibility of the legislature that decided they were going to pay for it. The taxpayers have recourse, too -- tell their legislators they don't accept paying for it. If enough do so, it'll stop. You see the government paying for housing for those the taxpayers are happy to see living under a bridge? No. Think about it.
On the other hand, if the representatives get the message that we're compassionate enough to offer to help those who want to be helped? Well then, that's how it'll go. And of course, there is some small chance that private charity will address a problem. Very small.
It still doesn't give anyone the right to tell another person what to do, or not do, with their own body or those of others who consent (and even if you try to arrogate such a right, you will inevitably find that it won't "take." Witness the failure of prohibition and the drug war and the sex worker / sex client war and the pro-heterosexuality war and slavery.)
These things have two obvious things in common: First, the laws themselves, far more than the things they make illegal, cause immense harm. The second is that they make legislators look incredibly stupid in front of anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag. The former is a damned shame. The latter, I'm afraid, we already had ample proof of.
If the judiciary has the power to consider cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (this is spelled out in Article III, so I don't think you can dispute that it has such power) then how do you purpose that it exercise such power?
Just the way a circuit judge exercises the power of laws at his/her level: By enforcing them. Not by re-defining or ignoring for some trumped-up "cause."
INTRASTATE commerce. Make NO law. shall NOT infringe....powers not assigned here SHALL go to the states. NO ex post facto laws, state OR federal. Warrant REQUIRED. And so on. Where's the (honest) controversy? This stuff is forbidden, plain and simple, and any time it comes up, and I mean *any* time, the whole thing is an exercise in constitutional violation and unauthorized use, or attempted use, of power.
The constitution wasn't written for sophist lawyers to dance on the head of a pin. It was written to restrict and define the role of government in plain English, by and for the citizens. Step outside that, it's not government -- it's just a banana dictatorship -- "because the government says so." Yeah, we're neck deep in this crap and sinking fast, but that does not, and never will, make it right.
Congress passes a law, the President signs it, some aggrieved third party says it's unconstitutional. Exactly who do you think should review said law and make the final determination?
Congress shall make no law. Congress makes a law. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
[thing] shall not be infringed upon. Congress makes a law that infringes. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
All other rights and powers go to the states. Congress makes a law that takes some of those powers unto itself. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Congress nor states may make ex post facto laws. They make ex post facto laws. We should send the makers home and tear the laws up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Search and seizure may not be pursued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, which allows a judge to choose to issue a warrant, which in turn must specify the things to be searched for and the place(s) to be searched. Congress or a state (or a TLA, effectively) makes a law that breaks this chain: We should send the makers/breakers home and tear the law/rule up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Authority? The US constitution, which lays out the limits of government, barring use of article five. As these people are all obviously in violation of the limits, they are no longer qualified to be a part of it, and sending them home amounts to no more than the courtesy of paying for their ticket. They clearly didn't belong where they were.
Well, the Supreme Court also said that the Supreme Court gets to decide the Constitutionality of laws, even though that power isn't assigned to them in the Constitution.
Can you imagine what rules the fox would put in place, given the authority to guard the henhouse?
Welcome to how the US government operates, in direct opposition to article five. Article three does not assign article five powers, or anything remotely resembling them, to the judiciary.
Any legislation or ruling contrary to the constitution is unauthorized use of power by definition. There's a great deal of it. A good argument can be made that our government is pathologically out of control based on this alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is what is so frustrating about all this.
Consensual sex is good. Consensual sex is fine. Consensual sex is entertaining.
The "bad' things about consensual sex, mostly including distributing media recording it -- disease, "moral" backlash, reputation damage, difference from how the external objector thinks it should be performed, perceived "offense", blatant rationalizations about agency magically not being present for the most ridiculous, transparent and obviously invalid reasons -- all of this stuff comes from outside sex. They are not sex. All of these things are things a sane person needs to defend against in both the prophylactic and immediate senses. These factors are all pernicious to immediate attacks on normality and goodness -- on sex itself -- and as such, they can be dangerous as hell.
The *one* inherent, sex-centric risk that affects just a few of the many forms of sex is that of unwanted pregnancy. Because yes, that's actually part of those (again, few) aspects of sex. And, just like the external threats, it can be defended against, so it's not a good reason to not have sex even of that kind, and of course it never was a good reason to avoid the myriad types and expressions of sex that cannot result in pregnancy.
Into this environment come the bewildered. Google's corporate overlords, like most who have gained power, seek to impose their view of what's "ok" on everyone else. In the context of this step back from the brink, Google is still way, way above the depths in terms of the violence, coercion and repression the government, religions, various corporations and the general public have established, but we have been witness to the urge growing within the Google power structure. Of course it is wonderful to see it set back somewhat, but we would be extremely gullible if we thought this was certain to be the end of it. This is a very well-trodden path.
Into this environment come the masses (but I repeat myself.) Just a few days ago, an episode of The Walking Dead aired that had the Intertubes quite upset due to content.
Now, this particular work of fiction, you have to understand, has showcased, in graphic detail, human cannibalism; murder of many stripes; suicide; extreme torture; extreme bondage; non-consensual amputation; and of course "zombies" in glorious anatomical and decaying detail. Exploding heads, severed body parts, the thrusting of limbs inside the dead, painting one's self in zombie gore, the most generous splashing of body parts and fluids in every direction and every variety you could possibly imagine (unless you think they actually missed something, and in which case, if you let the producers know, I'd bet money it shows up within a few episodes.) In play have been tanks, explosives, booby traps, fire, bacterial assault, knives, guns, imprisonment, baseball bats, swords, fingernails, martial arts... None of this so much as raises an eyebrow with the viewing public, who think it's all delightful entertainment.
So good grief, what could the content possibly be that actually got the viewers weirded out enough to speak up and get feisty? Only this: Two gay fellows sharing a kiss. Not even a particularly passionate kiss, but more of a "wow, so glad you made it through that alive" kiss.
We -- the few truly sane, the only way to honestly characterize it -- watch this kind of governmental, corporate, religious and individual pathology from outside, and I have to tell all of you, any hope that human society will ever come to its senses is extinguished in a manner I can only liken to a tidal wave rolling over a single guttering candle.
There's nothing for it. Society is sick, sick, sick. And dangerous. You all be careful out there.
Under-rated. Even if it gets to +5
I'm pretty sure you're both right. :/
He's dead and gone. Really. What he helped create for us isn't, though, and that is certainly grounds for considerable cheer.
It is very well documented that the reaction people were told they would have, which was a good one, by those who should have (and did) know otherwise, is not the reaction they actually got, which was deadly.
So while I agree absolutely that we are responsible for the outcomes of choices we make for which we understand the eventual and potential outcome(s), I deny just as absolutely that we are responsible for the outcomes of choices we make when we have been deceived.
I would have no problem whatsoever voting to convict a tobacco company executive of the previous century of premeditated manslaughter by poisoning. However, at this point, we know, or we should know, how utterly stupid smoking tobacco is in the context of our health, and yes, any individual capable of informed consent who is still (or begins) smoking today can't reasonably blame that on anyone other than themselves. And as long as they don't, and don't make non-consenting persons and animals inhale the carcinogenic pollution that results, I'm all for them smoking all they want.
I'm interested to learn that you think you can tell the future. However, since I know you can't, I will simply point out that you don't understand the actual reason for insurance, a not uncommon failing among the young who have little relevant experience with disaster. This isn't betting, where you "win" if you can guess your disease. It's not supposed to be like a slot machine. This is about risk amelioration.
See, insurance isn't about what your condition is now. Insurance is about what your condition may become. So, when kid #2 develops a lymphatic tumor under their arm, instead of "parents tried to cheap out because they had a young and healthy family and now kid #2 can't get medical care", it is "off to a cancer specialist you go, #2, because we cared enough to see to it your risks were addressed."
Yes, it's really strange that those who needed healthcare are glad they were finally able to get it, isn't it? Weird! Gosh! Huh! How in the world??? (cough)
There are various deductibles. You choose the one you want. If you choose a 5k deductible, you're responsible for that choice. As far as insurance that's "not needed" goes, we don't know what we need because we have no way to tell what the future brings. The only way to determine what we probably or may need is via statistics. I trust the actuaries more than I trust my own judgement. Because I'm just that smart.
To directly answer your question, no, thus far and at the moment, I have not and am not. I've eroded my deductible a bit, probably won't work my way through it by the end of the year, barring unseen problems. Didn't last year, either. But of course I might very much benefit from "other people's money" at some point in the future.
That said, everyone in any insurance pool anywhere, ever, who makes a claim, is "getting other people's money." That's how insurance works. Similar for taxes. We all pay in, and in the case of the ACA, those who get the subsidies get the advantage of the payout. We do that when the loads are too great and/or too random for individuals to bear: infrastructure, military, healthcare (finally!), fire services, etc.
Well, for that, you want to look to your insurance company -- not the ACA. You can get plans where the doctor doesn't have to be in a network. The ones where they do use in-network doctors are generally less expensive though, so that may effectively be your answer. But it isn't the ACA that mandates pools. It's the insurance companies, and it's always been the insurance companies.
If you're in my pool, then yes, I can and do help pay for yours. Again: That's how insurance works. If I'm not paying for you in the pool (different state, or different pool) even so I'm paying for other people's there -- and I have no problem with that. Likewise, in your state, in your pool, other people are paying for you. To the extent that my federal taxes (quite significant) are paying for your subsidy, I'm happy to do that as well. It's sure oodles better than thinking about what I'm paying for WRT various other government programs.
The ACA requires that insurance costs are specifically limited for low-income individuals and families and there are tax credits. If you want me on your side here, you'd have to demonstrate that your income was low and your insurance costs were high and that the ACA didn't arrange for a circumstance to reasonably ameliorate your costs. Can you do that? I'd be very interested to learn the details, short of personally identifying data.
Insurance is the way that congress decided this was going to operate. Given that, yeah, I'm happy to put the related money into insurance and into taxes as it lets me know that you and yours will be covered if that's needed. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. I am pleased, however, that your feelings, as you expressed above, do not get to determine if other people get adequate healthcare.
They didn't do all that badly. Not surprising, as it wasn't "the government", it was a group of medical and insurance professionals using statistics to determine what the needs generally encompass which congress (not Obama) incorporated into the final law. But you keep rolling with those "the government" and "Obama lied!" memes, they still sound good to the information-poor. And of course they fixed some of the other problems, like making care for pre-existing conditions practical, limiting insurance company profits, and seeing to it that family coverage was a bit more about family and a bit less about "how soon can we shuck the kids off the policies." Single payer would, of course, have been much, much better. That's what Obama wanted, btw -- the ACA is wholly a product of congress. The only sense that it is "Obama's" is in that he wanted to see people get medical care, and congress managed to get some care, to some people, and he accepted the compromise rather than walk away with nothing.
When you want to rant about "your decisions", you should really consider the reality, which was the insurance company deciding for you what would be covered. Oh, you had a migrane headache? Then we'll just slap a rider on your policy that we won't cover anything to do with your neurological system or your circulatory system, how's that for "making your own decisions"? You don't want "the government" making decisions for you, but you're perfectly ok with the for-profit insurance company limiting your care. That doesn't make you a smart insurance consumer. That makes you a tin-plated idiot.
The honest way of saying it is if you weren't covered to the ACA minimums, your insurance sucked. There's no putting lipstick on that pig, pal. Now, as to why your insurance sucked, that could be any number of reasons -- but it still boils down to one thing: you needed better coverage. You may not admit it, you may want to gamble with your health and the health of others, but that's why we mandate some things, because people often make really bad choices for themselves, and in this case, as your health impacts others, just as your education does, a minimum has been set. Don't like it? Tough. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Just means you don't like it. Wanna change it? Go to congress -- the people who are responsible for it.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. First of all, your doctor can apply to the insurance company. Second of all, you can determine which doctors are already in which groups two ways: One, by looking on the insurance company lists, two, by simply asking your doctor (or the office staff, more likely.) You can certainly end up in a situation you don't want by failing to approach this in a reasonable manner, but it's almost certainly to be on you, not the system. I ran into this specific problem -- doctor not in the specific insurance pool I wanted to use -- and it took all of two weeks to fix that, something I sussed out and took care of before I committed to the group. You can probably still fix it, for that matter.
Oh, stuff and nonsense. Out of 310 million citizens, there were about 50 million uninsured. The ACA added about 10 million to the 260 million insured, thereby increasing the load on the system by a "whopping" 3.8%.
Not just managers. Even working for yourself won't save you. Customers as well.
Brings to mind the Maxell ad where the guy is sitting in the chair, hair blown back by the JBL-L100 in front of him.
Imagine the paper tapes instead of the L100. Except no hair would be blowing back, and I suspect the fellow would be asleep. Other than that, exactly the same.
That's excellent. Did you build your own protocol, or did you use the mechanism RFSPACE, Andrus, AFEDRI and the various USB-to-Ethernet servers have established?
I try -- hard -- to support all ethernet based SDRs for which I can obtain protocol information.
Sound card I/Q is no problem for SdrDx -- that gets the RF in, and of course I support that. The problem with the rest is controlling the SDR's settings: center frequency, attenuator, sample rate, and so on. This is because of the radical differences in USB interfacing from platform to platform.
Having said that, if you've got a working command line utility that talks to the control systems on your SDR, then SdrDx emits information via TCP that can be used to drive the command line client from a script. We've pulled this off with the Peabody and Softrock SDRs pretty well. Again, though, we run into the issue of which platform(s) the utility is available for, seeing as how they'd have to be radically different from one another.
You haven't lived until you've seen a centerfold spread out over six feet of multiple strips of punched paper tape. :/
This is going to be long-winded; there's quite a bit to cover. Sorry. :)
Cover, yes. Cover well, no. You need lots of bit depth for adequate dynamic range without filters, bit depth almost no one offers, and if you don't have adequate bit depth, then you really need front end filtering and probably a stepped attenuator as well. You need EM protection because HF antennas tend to be large and prone to large induced voltages. You need good frequency linearity if you want to use the SDR to get accurate measurements (even the s-meter.) For the ham bands, it's also nice if the SDR supports a sample rate of 400 khz or better, which is tough for a sound card SDR. Then there is frequency accuracy and stability, not to mention external reference sources (there all kinds of cool things you can do with a very stable SDR, like this AM graveyard band carrier forest), and then we get into multiple front ends for diversity reception and noise reduction. If you want to remote the SDR for any reason, you really need ethernet, and if you need ethernet, you need some smarts. And you need ethernet anyway, because USB bloody sucks (speaking as a cross-platform developer.) So If you want a good SDR, you just don't end up with a "brain dead simple" SDR.
As to narrow ham bands in the HF range, well, not really. 160 meters is 200 kHz. 80 meters is 500 kHz. 20 meters is 350 KHz. 15 meters is 450 kHz. 10 meters is 1.7 MHz. The WARC bands are all pretty tiny. Also, for SWL, some of those are quite wide, and even more so if you include the out of band regions where the pirates are. Pirates being quite unpredictable, you want them in the spectrum so you can see them when they pop up, so bandwidth is quite relevant if they are of interest (personally, I find them fascinating.) Come to that, if you want to see what overall prop/activity is looking like, you need 30 MHz of bandwidth to do it live.
I will grant you that someday, we may be able to put a 48 bit, multiple Gs/s A/D on a chip with a full ethernet interface cheap enough for anyone to own; but not right now. Until that day, good SDRs will not be "brain dead simple."
More on frequency range: If you want to use the SDR for a panadaptor for an existing receiver (very common use), then it has to cover one of the IF frequencies and associated bandwidth of the receiver, which tends to be in the HF range (not always, though.) Then there are cray-cray folk like myself; among other things, I use my SDR to monitor bats in our attic. To do that, the SDR has to be able to do a good job with the first 100 KHz, also true of experimentation with sonar and other audio ranging and detecting tech.
I'm not saying there isn't stuff up higher than HF; of course there is. Some of the really cool stuff (wifi, for instance) is as high as 5 GHz. Satellites, public utilities, etc. Any motion video needs to be up pretty high (but it also needs very significant bandwidth.) But HF has a huge amount of interest, it's where most hams actually hang out, and as it's a very challenging reception environment, higher end designs are of great interest. So are hackable designs one can get at. For instance, if you built yourself a multi-stage filter bank for the various HF bands, you could have them switch automatically as you tune. Likewise you could control add-on attenuators, RF preamps, and switchable transverters (which can give a nominally lower freq range SDR excellent access to higher bands.)
I have a variety of SDRs, and switching is simply a matter of prodding a menu. I have access from about 1 Hz to 3 GHz across the group, with varying features as described above. In the end,
Most hams (including myself) are interested in HF (and others are interested in SWL and the new below-AM BCB ham frequencies.)
50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes. Many of these upper bands are almost dead -- I've not heard anyone on 2 meters or 70 cm around here in the last year -- but 10 through 160 meters (28 MHz through 1.8 MHz) are busy as heck, and of course all the SW spectrum in between.
Worse, we're almost certain to be about to slide down the sunspot curve, making the already mostly dead-by-choice bands completely dead-by-nature, propagation-wise.
RFSPACE's upcoming new unit is .009 (9khz) through 50 MHz. That's a lot more attractive to me. Both to use, and to support.
Then there's funcube dongle pro plus... 50 khz through 1.8 GHz, albeit without adequate filtering up front. But it's reasonably cheap, so there's that. (and I already supported it, PITA though it was, so it's not subject to the no-more-USB-devices rule.)
Well, whatever they end up with, I sure hope it's ethernet-connected and uses the standard SDR protocol as do Andrus, AFEDRI and RFSPACE. I've supported my last black sheep USB device (every darned OS has radically different USB interfacing and requirements... building my free cross-platform SDR software is most tricky with regard to USB issues. Ethernet, by comparison, is almost identical on all platforms -- the same SDR protocol / interfacing code works fine across linux, Windows and OS X.)
Keep the Jehovahs and Mormons from getting in the house. Bonus if it can hold off people pushing meritless products. But I repeat myself.
As for serving drinks or drugs, the damn things should do what they're told. I don't need robots to take agency from me. Lard knows the frigging government is spending more than enough effort on that already. For me personally, all I have to say is "I already have (had) a mother, and her last bit of authority over me expired in 1977."
First time a (non-conscious) robot refused to do what I told it to, presuming only it was within its comprehension and skill set, I think I'd take a hammer to it.
Look. The only reason you wouldn't be able to keep your insurance that the ACA could even *vaguely* be named responsible for is if it was so bad that it didn't meet the minimum standards of the ACA, and your insurance company didn't upgrade the policy accordingly -- most likely, they cancelled it in favor of new policies that *did* meet the minimum requirements. The whole *point* of the ACA was to see to it that people were *sufficiently* insured.
Otherwise, the only reasons you would lose your current insurance would be if the insurance company cancelled your policy -- and in that case, the blame lands squarely on the insurance company; or your employer decided to take the opportunity to cut your benefits and blame it on the ACA. In that case, look to your employer.
As for your doctor, the only ACA-related reason you might not be able to keep your doctor is if they don't bother to register with the pool you chose -- and all you have to do there is tell your doctor which one it is. And if they fail to register, you can blame your doctor. My doctor did the right thing, and she's still my doctor. I specifically asked, and she said there was almost nothing to it.
Now, let's look this issue right in the face. Are there conditions where you couldn't keep your doctor? Sure. For instance, if your doctor got run over by a bus. Or retired. Or committed suicide. Or moved to Botswana. Or switched jobs. So "Obama lied", right? But of course, if you're a sane person and not trying to shill your way through a bout of Obama-hate, you would understand that there will be some exceptions, and generally, they're going to be related to the doctor's circumstance -- just as the bus incident would be. Because there isn't one damn thing in the ACA that says "this here doctor can't be used."
As with the previous poster, my circumstances were enormously improved by the ACA. I did get to keep my doctor (it was no problem at all, she just did a little paperwork, that was it) and my coverage is now excellent.
Is everything perfect? No. Republicans are blocking the medicaid expansion here, so many no- and low-income individuals who were intended to be covered by the ACA, aren't. While this goes on, the taxes we paid here to cover them go to another state as the already-allocated funds are disbursed elsewhere. Consequently, our medical and insurance costs here are rising because we are paying the hospitals for uncompensated care for people who should have been covered, and for which the funds were already allocated.
Perhaps it should be the job of the president. Oh, that'd stir up the hornet's nest a bit. :)
Executive order #xxx: congressman Ex P. Facto, supporter of the Add Punishment After Conviction bill (APAC, HR 666), goes home to [State] today, never to return to legislative service. [State], if you want representation this term, time for an off-season election. Try a little harder so you pick someone who can read this time around, and see to it that they read and understand that thing they swear an oath to.
Well, see, if we say you are forbidden from doing X, and you do X, and we do nothing, what we have done is set up a situation where when forbidden from doing Y, you will see absolutely no reason not to do Y, too. Welcome to the US state and federal legislatures.
To these people, no does not mean no. Because they are sophist bullshit artists. And we won't show them no does mean no. So that's the end of it.
If the citizens cared, any number of means could be provided. But frankly, no one cares. The number of people I have met who actually know what the constitution says is appallingly small. We live in a corporate oligarchy inside a banana dictatorship shell, in the main populated with ignorant couch potatoes.
Yeah... the part that might have made it work. :/ Instead, they just arrogated article 5 powers unto themselves, also without oversight (and they have used that freedom from oversight to outright ignore the constitution over and over again.)
You notice how laws have consequences? And that's the basis, we hope anyway, for people to obey them even if they'd like to disobey? Notice that the laws, supposedly the highest in the land, in the constitution have zero punishment / teeth? You know why that was? Because people were expected to act with honor in public service. Good grief, what an error that was.
There are only three ways you can easily kill someone with pot.
First, put them in jail. Rape and murder are potential outcomes. Then, once released as a felon, suicide may get them when they find the doors of (legal) opportunity have closed and they are permanently ranked lowest-class-irredeemable by society's permanent retribution stick. Finally, if they try to make it in the underground economy, the system will likely get another whack at them in its rape-and-murder parlors. Also, as the government has created a violent black market in pot with its laws, competition in the underground economy is also a potential source of death.
Second, stuff enough pot into their windpipe to completely block their breathing. That'll do it.
Third, drop a 100 kg bale of pot on their head from about 100 meters above. That'll do it pretty much every time. See? Pot can be dangerous.
There are other ways, but they are more difficult to set up and generally require many bales of pot and restraint of the victim.
That is NOT the responsibility of the individual. It is the responsibility of the legislature that decided they were going to pay for it. The taxpayers have recourse, too -- tell their legislators they don't accept paying for it. If enough do so, it'll stop. You see the government paying for housing for those the taxpayers are happy to see living under a bridge? No. Think about it.
On the other hand, if the representatives get the message that we're compassionate enough to offer to help those who want to be helped? Well then, that's how it'll go. And of course, there is some small chance that private charity will address a problem. Very small.
It still doesn't give anyone the right to tell another person what to do, or not do, with their own body or those of others who consent (and even if you try to arrogate such a right, you will inevitably find that it won't "take." Witness the failure of prohibition and the drug war and the sex worker / sex client war and the pro-heterosexuality war and slavery.)
These things have two obvious things in common: First, the laws themselves, far more than the things they make illegal, cause immense harm. The second is that they make legislators look incredibly stupid in front of anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag. The former is a damned shame. The latter, I'm afraid, we already had ample proof of.
Just the way a circuit judge exercises the power of laws at his/her level: By enforcing them. Not by re-defining or ignoring for some trumped-up "cause."
INTRASTATE commerce. Make NO law. shall NOT infringe. ...powers not assigned here SHALL go to the states. NO ex post facto laws, state OR federal. Warrant REQUIRED. And so on. Where's the (honest) controversy? This stuff is forbidden, plain and simple, and any time it comes up, and I mean *any* time, the whole thing is an exercise in constitutional violation and unauthorized use, or attempted use, of power.
The constitution wasn't written for sophist lawyers to dance on the head of a pin. It was written to restrict and define the role of government in plain English, by and for the citizens. Step outside that, it's not government -- it's just a banana dictatorship -- "because the government says so." Yeah, we're neck deep in this crap and sinking fast, but that does not, and never will, make it right.
Congress shall make no law. Congress makes a law. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
[thing] shall not be infringed upon. Congress makes a law that infringes. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
All other rights and powers go to the states. Congress makes a law that takes some of those powers unto itself. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Congress nor states may make ex post facto laws. They make ex post facto laws. We should send the makers home and tear the laws up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Search and seizure may not be pursued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, which allows a judge to choose to issue a warrant, which in turn must specify the things to be searched for and the place(s) to be searched. Congress or a state (or a TLA, effectively) makes a law that breaks this chain: We should send the makers/breakers home and tear the law/rule up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Authority? The US constitution, which lays out the limits of government, barring use of article five. As these people are all obviously in violation of the limits, they are no longer qualified to be a part of it, and sending them home amounts to no more than the courtesy of paying for their ticket. They clearly didn't belong where they were.
Can you imagine what rules the fox would put in place, given the authority to guard the henhouse?
Welcome to how the US government operates, in direct opposition to article five. Article three does not assign article five powers, or anything remotely resembling them, to the judiciary.
Any legislation or ruling contrary to the constitution is unauthorized use of power by definition. There's a great deal of it. A good argument can be made that our government is pathologically out of control based on this alone.
And we hear from another damned pillow-hugger...