What we could use are very, very small sensels (in order to maximally limit photon intercept by area) that are insanely fast photon detectors with very deep counters behind them. The latter is easy, the former, not so much. But given that, you'll have a camera that's as sensitive as possible to low light (count a photon, there you go) and has as much dynamic range as you care to implement counter stages and allow for continuing exposure, and extremely high data resolution, certainly more than our lens tech can take advantage of. Which in turn provides some statistical advantages in analyzing data from neighboring sensels. Or in other words, if the resolution of the lens is much lower than the sensor, then the behavior of the *group* of sensels is going to give you the information you want, which in turn will reduce noise.
Major problems include extremely small XY geometries required, extreme speeds required for first few counter stages, noise photons (electrons) that are not part of the incoming stream -- some kind of ultra stable, effectively "cold" material seems to be needed. Perhaps something analogous to a ping-pong-ball accumulator for orderly counting of captured PPBs/photons.
When (if) you look at this, note the huge mess over in North Dakota. That's largely gas burn-off from oil wells. Luckily, I"m far enough west of them that I still have actual dark skies (little green plus marker, top right) but I think we're at severe risk of suffering the same light insult as them before too much longer.
10 kw is an interesting number for another reason, too -- 10 kwh is about the size of the average US home electrical draw. An hour of run time, some storage... assuming 10 kw is the output of these things, and various efficiencies, etc. Still, it's an interesting number. Sure seems like you could make an interesting power source from them.
What I'm saying is, if they cut their relatively clean protein with an equivalent amount of crap, maybe it would be about the same price. If that's what you want to eat, then great.
Here's what they have to do: First, they have to get the taste right. So far, they've completely missed the mark on everything I've tried, and I've tried everything I could get my hands on. Second, they have to get the "mouth feel" right. That seems to be easier -- I've downed a few veggie burgers that felt right -- but that first point... gah. Third, they have to get it to look right. Again, sometimes they get pretty close. But they need 1+2+3, not some subset. Once they get there, it has to be affordable, and IMHO, that's going to mean subsidizing it initially. Otherwise, not enough people will try it, mass production doesn't happen, it stays expensive and gets minimal distribution, end of product.
I've more confidence in the lab-grown meat idea as a good final solution. No animal suffering, but it's actually meat. If they can make it work. So far, after years of trying, they don't appear to be that close. I donate money to this particular cause and have for years, but it is moving slower than I thought it would. I think we just don't know enough about biology, frankly.
I'd rather eat veggies, and mostly, I do. I have a gluten allergy that only allows me to eat anything with gluten about once a week while dosing myself with allergy pills. More often or without allergy pill support and the symptoms (myriad) get nasty, and quickly, too.
Between that and trying to limit my meat intake, my options are considerably more narrow than I'd like. Worse, before we figured the gluten thing out, my favorite foods were pasta and breads... pizza... spaghetti... sigh.:(
The idea of feeding corn to a cow is a pretty new one borne out of the rise of industrial farming.
And it's really funny as can be, since grain-fed cattle taste far better than corn-fed cattle. Reminds me of the whole ethanol-for-fuel thing. Some genius (seriously) with an interest in the corn industry comes up with an idea, and the public suffers endlessly for it.
Before the ACA, insurance premium increases were just insurance premium increases. About a few years ago they were "due to expectations about the ACA" and now after the ACA and henceforth they will be "due to the ACA we will have to ask you for more money we are totally sorry about this and it's out of our hands."
No. You've missed a very important part of the ACA. If the insurance company makes over 20% margin beyond actual healthcare costs, they have to refund it to the customers. Last year, the first time that was in effect, the refunds totaled over 1.1 billion dollars. Again, the days of them increasing premiums for no good reason other than profit, and the days of them making massive margins by fooling people, are over. Over.
The ACA just requires a policy to cover some basics -- and there were a lot of policies that were junk. Insurance companies are canceling people so they can make money and not be forced to give you a decent policy -- that's all there is to it.
No, that's NOT all there is to it. That's just incorrect rhetoric, and wherever you got it from, you should stop going there. I can tell you, flat out, that my insurance policy under the ACA is *excellent*, and it is both affordable and available to anyone who selects the tier I did. Many will receive subsidies, making the effective cost much less than it is for me, too.
There's a ton of misinformation circulating about the ACA; you've unquestionably been victim of some of it. I would strongly advise you to backtrack and find out what the source was, and then write it off your list of places to find truths.
There's no question the ACA is a done deal and isn't going away; it's doing great things for a huge number of people and it is now politically impossible to disrupt it. The disinformation machine has outright failed. Time to get with what's actually happening. And hey -- the ACA isn't perfect by any means. You could be helping to improve it, instead of wasting your time complaining about things that simply aren't true. One good example of this are the state legislatures that refused the medicaid supplement. Those legislators should lose their jobs. Yesterday. And of course the people doing the online system need their feet held to the fire with as much bad publicity as can be thrown at them -- knowing what they did with the online stuff, I wouldn't ask those idiots to attempt to program fizzbuzz.
Yes, that sounds right along the lines of the other stories we've heard from real people. I'm very glad to hear you're covered now, and that you've got a real shot at a meaningful recovery.
Regarding costs: Yes, very painful. Some are litigation related, including preventive insurance (used to be married to a surgeon, know all about that) and some is the hospital trying to make your saline bag and ambulance trip pay for all the bills they produce that don't get paid. And some of it, probably a lot of it, is just plain old greed.
Thing that really serves to irritate me is that our healthcare is among the most expensive, but our outcomes are not among the best. If nothing else told us we are doing it wrong, that certainly ought to.
Just as an off-topic aside, this topic (not just my threads) is the most amusing peak event of "moderation as agree/disagree" that I've seen in my years here. Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.
Slashdot moderation. lol. Just lol.
Note to the powers that be: If you EVER thought anonymous moderation was a good idea, this topic alone should serve as the poster child come to completely disabuse you of that notion. Unless, of course, you're one of the ones abusing the moderation system, in which case, well, there you go.:)
I wasn't dismissing you from slashdot, silly, I was dismissing your argument because of your non-informational response, not to mention the name-calling.
However, since you elected to actually provide data elsewhere, I've picked the discussion right up again.
If it's actually fucked you, I seriously want to know about it. You may have trouble believing that, but it's true. I'm going to give you every opportunity to make your case, if you so choose.
Madness? A colonoscopy -- a half hour, non surgical procedure involving light anesthesia -- with NO problematic results -- is seven grand. If you have NO other medical expenses in that year, your income has to exceed $70000 to make that cost "only" ten percent of your income. If something SERIOUS happens to you -- you need surgery, you get cancer, serious car accident, diabetes, etc., in order to hit or stay under that ten percent of income mark, your income will have to be much, much higher. And since you can't just magically make that happen, instead, you'll lose all your stuff and make everyone else pay more. Or, you can pay a few thousand for insurance and pretty much no matter what happens to you, you're going to be ok.
I've done this for you in the past. I'm not going to do it again
No, I'm pretty sure you haven't. You've most likely confused me with someone else. Not a problem.
I am required to subsidize your health care now
Well. I am required to pay for highways that I never drive upon. I am required to pay for fire extinguishing services and I have never had a house fire. I am required to pay for public schools, even though I never sent a child there. I am required to pay for corporate subsidies, even though I am not in favor of these. I am required to pay for various war efforts, even though I am not only not in favor, but vehemently opposed to same. The idea that I might have to pay to improve someone else's health strikes me a a breath of fresh air. In fact, in a purely selfish way, I don't want to have people, far sicker than they need to be, running around and sharing the bounty of their personal microbial crops with me and mine. Nor am I in favor of them being out of work for any more time than required.
Time for a little anecdote. Fairly recently, the lady and I went to McDonald's for a salad and some coffee. They took our order via the miked menu outside, then our money at window #1, and so we pulled up to window #2, where the food was to arrive. When they opened the window, those poor bastards (uninsured in any sense worth really talking about) collectively managed to do a marvelous impression of a final stage tuberculosis ward. I rolled up the winddow and we drove off without our food.
When you talk about "now" having to subsidize the medical costs of others, let me just point out to you that when these uninsured types zip right down to the emergency room and consume medical services at a premium, while not getting actual decent care but instead, just getting stabilized, you pay for that just as directly via increased costs to the hospital that were "covered" by government grants, increases in the cost of our own medical needs, and higher insurance premiums to pay those higher medical costs, which in turn, you (and I, and everyone else) pay for. There's no free lunch. When people are sick or injured, it's going to cost. It's expensive and it is unevenly distributed, and it is best done in a manner that works to control the costs (prophilactic care, etc.) by pooling our resources and then expending them on a per issue basis, and preventative ones, and in the context of completely addressing problems with an appropriate course of therapy instead of just doing the minimum, or nothing.
When you want to bitch about paying for everyone else's healthcare, to whatever extent that may be so, just remember, the better health the population is in, the better health you -- and yours, and the economy -- are are likely to be able to maintain. It's a fact, and there's no way around it.
I am trying to build capital and wealth.
Do you not understand that if you fall and break your leg, or catch something horrible, or develop chronic asthma, or cancer, or manage to detach a retina, or get burned really badly, that without insurance, your capital and wealth will evaporate like smoke on the windiest day you can imagine? I think you do, since you tell me you had insurance previously. Now I ask you: Would you want to have that happen to someone else? Seriously? When just by putting your shoulder to the same wheel the rest of us are trying to roll around, you can prevent it to some useful extent?
My insurance went from $180 to $455 a month
Ok. Delighted you're being forthcoming. Let's work it. If your new insurance is being delivered under the aegis of the ACA, then at $455/mo for your premium, you're paying $5460/year, and your income (after business deductions, if you're taking those) should be (at least) $54600, because under the ACA, no one has to pay more than 10% of their income unless t
It doesn't justify all the damage caused to everyone else though.
No such damage has been demonstrated. Every such claim -- EVERY ONE -- so far has been debunked. Research it, you'll see immediately that these claims are consistently unfounded nonsense. We've got a guy right here, with an actual ID, making those claims, and you'll note he refuses to prove his case and simply indulges in name-calling, even though it would get him on national media if he did prove his case, likely ending his financial problems right there.
See, the FACT is, under the ACA, no one, that's NO ONE, pays more than 10% of their income. Which is not even to say they'll pay that much. Plans vary; choose to pay less, and you get less. Duh. You have to use your head just a little bit.
The ONLY ones who got hammered without it being their own darned fault here were those who were supposed to be covered under the medicaid expansion, where instead the state legislatures threw them directly under the bus by refusing it. That's a not a fault with the ACA. That's a fault with the state legislature.
The ACA is doing very well. The screaming is now known to be almost entirely political butthurt, and that's one disease I am not sorry to see people suffer.
The most *anyone* pays under the ACA is less than 10% of their income.
If you can't afford that, it's time to reconsider your budget (and perhaps some behaviors... like smoking), because you're doing it wrong.
I'll tell you what you can't afford: injury or serious illness. If you think *insurance* is expensive, you have NO idea what's waiting for you just around the corner.
My lab tests are covered, as are my prescriptions. My copay is less, too -- $5 if they're in our group, and $10 if not -- Sounds to me like you simply picked the wrong policy. Make sure you look into equivalent meds, too. For instance, my insurance won't pay for Ventolin HFA, but they will pay for PROAIR HFA. Either one addresses the asthma just fine. I pay less than 10% of my income. I consider that a great bargain.
Again, your choice of policy is not the fault of the ACA. This is very much a situation where consumer choice is part of the process.
My daughter in law chose a different policy than the one my son chose. This was because she takes (expensive) Victoza shots, so she needed to choose a policy that met her needs, which were quite different from my son's. Thanks to the ACA, you can research and choose something that best meets your needs. But you still have to *do* it.
Again, I call bullshit. PROVE you had a policy with more benefits, that cost less, than an ACA sponsored policy: insurance company, the policy you were covered under, your age and state and what you were paying. Let's see the data.
I'm self-employed and the ACA was *hands-down* a better deal for myself, it was better for my self-employed lady, and better for my one son who is self-employed. All with radically different health states and histories. I would be *astounded* if your claims were true, and if so, you should go right to the right wing news media, because brother, have they ever been looking for someone who makes the claims you do and can back them up. Everyone so far has turned out to be completely full of shit.
Slashdot Mirror
We can already fab counters that are *way* faster than that. 1 ns is 1 GHz. 10 is only .1 GHz or 100 MHz. I must be missing something here?
Except for panic on behalf of the owner of the $1,000,000.00 violin, that is.
FTFY
Also, it's been a while since an an uncorked bottle cut my lips or fingers. No so long (or infrequent) for metal caps.
What we could use are very, very small sensels (in order to maximally limit photon intercept by area) that are insanely fast photon detectors with very deep counters behind them. The latter is easy, the former, not so much. But given that, you'll have a camera that's as sensitive as possible to low light (count a photon, there you go) and has as much dynamic range as you care to implement counter stages and allow for continuing exposure, and extremely high data resolution, certainly more than our lens tech can take advantage of. Which in turn provides some statistical advantages in analyzing data from neighboring sensels. Or in other words, if the resolution of the lens is much lower than the sensor, then the behavior of the *group* of sensels is going to give you the information you want, which in turn will reduce noise.
Major problems include extremely small XY geometries required, extreme speeds required for first few counter stages, noise photons (electrons) that are not part of the incoming stream -- some kind of ultra stable, effectively "cold" material seems to be needed. Perhaps something analogous to a ping-pong-ball accumulator for orderly counting of captured PPBs/photons.
When (if) you look at this, note the huge mess over in North Dakota. That's largely gas burn-off from oil wells. Luckily, I"m far enough west of them that I still have actual dark skies (little green plus marker, top right) but I think we're at severe risk of suffering the same light insult as them before too much longer.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
Been shooting so as to take advantage of it while I can, examples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/... ...and...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/... ...that's all camera work, btw, no telescopes, though I do have some moderately long lenses. ;)
eh, goddamit.
10k kiowatt hours.
WTF is my coffee?? Good grief.
10 kw is an interesting number for another reason, too -- 10 kwh is about the size of the average US home electrical draw. An hour of run time, some storage... assuming 10 kw is the output of these things, and various efficiencies, etc. Still, it's an interesting number. Sure seems like you could make an interesting power source from them.
Hmm. So I assume they're going to fine the cellphone companies for every person they have not given a cellphone to?
Oh, wait. You're only important if you pay. The rest can DIAF.
What was I thinking.
No. I meant grain other than corn.
Good thing it isn't a price control, then.
Here's what they have to do: First, they have to get the taste right. So far, they've completely missed the mark on everything I've tried, and I've tried everything I could get my hands on. Second, they have to get the "mouth feel" right. That seems to be easier -- I've downed a few veggie burgers that felt right -- but that first point... gah. Third, they have to get it to look right. Again, sometimes they get pretty close. But they need 1+2+3, not some subset. Once they get there, it has to be affordable, and IMHO, that's going to mean subsidizing it initially. Otherwise, not enough people will try it, mass production doesn't happen, it stays expensive and gets minimal distribution, end of product.
I've more confidence in the lab-grown meat idea as a good final solution. No animal suffering, but it's actually meat. If they can make it work. So far, after years of trying, they don't appear to be that close. I donate money to this particular cause and have for years, but it is moving slower than I thought it would. I think we just don't know enough about biology, frankly.
I'd rather eat veggies, and mostly, I do. I have a gluten allergy that only allows me to eat anything with gluten about once a week while dosing myself with allergy pills. More often or without allergy pill support and the symptoms (myriad) get nasty, and quickly, too.
Between that and trying to limit my meat intake, my options are considerably more narrow than I'd like. Worse, before we figured the gluten thing out, my favorite foods were pasta and breads... pizza... spaghetti... sigh. :(
And it's really funny as can be, since grain-fed cattle taste far better than corn-fed cattle. Reminds me of the whole ethanol-for-fuel thing. Some genius (seriously) with an interest in the corn industry comes up with an idea, and the public suffers endlessly for it.
Oh, well.
No. You've missed a very important part of the ACA. If the insurance company makes over 20% margin beyond actual healthcare costs, they have to refund it to the customers. Last year, the first time that was in effect, the refunds totaled over 1.1 billion dollars. Again, the days of them increasing premiums for no good reason other than profit, and the days of them making massive margins by fooling people, are over. Over.
Here's a reference for you:
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/...
No, that's NOT all there is to it. That's just incorrect rhetoric, and wherever you got it from, you should stop going there. I can tell you, flat out, that my insurance policy under the ACA is *excellent*, and it is both affordable and available to anyone who selects the tier I did. Many will receive subsidies, making the effective cost much less than it is for me, too.
There's a ton of misinformation circulating about the ACA; you've unquestionably been victim of some of it. I would strongly advise you to backtrack and find out what the source was, and then write it off your list of places to find truths.
There's no question the ACA is a done deal and isn't going away; it's doing great things for a huge number of people and it is now politically impossible to disrupt it. The disinformation machine has outright failed. Time to get with what's actually happening. And hey -- the ACA isn't perfect by any means. You could be helping to improve it, instead of wasting your time complaining about things that simply aren't true. One good example of this are the state legislatures that refused the medicaid supplement. Those legislators should lose their jobs. Yesterday. And of course the people doing the online system need their feet held to the fire with as much bad publicity as can be thrown at them -- knowing what they did with the online stuff, I wouldn't ask those idiots to attempt to program fizzbuzz.
Yes, that sounds right along the lines of the other stories we've heard from real people. I'm very glad to hear you're covered now, and that you've got a real shot at a meaningful recovery.
Regarding costs: Yes, very painful. Some are litigation related, including preventive insurance (used to be married to a surgeon, know all about that) and some is the hospital trying to make your saline bag and ambulance trip pay for all the bills they produce that don't get paid. And some of it, probably a lot of it, is just plain old greed.
Thing that really serves to irritate me is that our healthcare is among the most expensive, but our outcomes are not among the best. If nothing else told us we are doing it wrong, that certainly ought to.
Just as an off-topic aside, this topic (not just my threads) is the most amusing peak event of "moderation as agree/disagree" that I've seen in my years here. Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.
Slashdot moderation. lol. Just lol.
Note to the powers that be: If you EVER thought anonymous moderation was a good idea, this topic alone should serve as the poster child come to completely disabuse you of that notion. Unless, of course, you're one of the ones abusing the moderation system, in which case, well, there you go. :)
So says a post that brings ZERO facts to the table, in criticism of one that brought many.
Anything wrong with this picture? Hello? Hello?
I wasn't dismissing you from slashdot, silly, I was dismissing your argument because of your non-informational response, not to mention the name-calling.
However, since you elected to actually provide data elsewhere, I've picked the discussion right up again.
If it's actually fucked you, I seriously want to know about it. You may have trouble believing that, but it's true. I'm going to give you every opportunity to make your case, if you so choose.
Madness? A colonoscopy -- a half hour, non surgical procedure involving light anesthesia -- with NO problematic results -- is seven grand. If you have NO other medical expenses in that year, your income has to exceed $70000 to make that cost "only" ten percent of your income. If something SERIOUS happens to you -- you need surgery, you get cancer, serious car accident, diabetes, etc., in order to hit or stay under that ten percent of income mark, your income will have to be much, much higher. And since you can't just magically make that happen, instead, you'll lose all your stuff and make everyone else pay more. Or, you can pay a few thousand for insurance and pretty much no matter what happens to you, you're going to be ok.
Now, what do you think the smartest course is?
No, I'm pretty sure you haven't. You've most likely confused me with someone else. Not a problem.
Well. I am required to pay for highways that I never drive upon. I am required to pay for fire extinguishing services and I have never had a house fire. I am required to pay for public schools, even though I never sent a child there. I am required to pay for corporate subsidies, even though I am not in favor of these. I am required to pay for various war efforts, even though I am not only not in favor, but vehemently opposed to same. The idea that I might have to pay to improve someone else's health strikes me a a breath of fresh air. In fact, in a purely selfish way, I don't want to have people, far sicker than they need to be, running around and sharing the bounty of their personal microbial crops with me and mine. Nor am I in favor of them being out of work for any more time than required.
Time for a little anecdote. Fairly recently, the lady and I went to McDonald's for a salad and some coffee. They took our order via the miked menu outside, then our money at window #1, and so we pulled up to window #2, where the food was to arrive. When they opened the window, those poor bastards (uninsured in any sense worth really talking about) collectively managed to do a marvelous impression of a final stage tuberculosis ward. I rolled up the winddow and we drove off without our food.
When you talk about "now" having to subsidize the medical costs of others, let me just point out to you that when these uninsured types zip right down to the emergency room and consume medical services at a premium, while not getting actual decent care but instead, just getting stabilized, you pay for that just as directly via increased costs to the hospital that were "covered" by government grants, increases in the cost of our own medical needs, and higher insurance premiums to pay those higher medical costs, which in turn, you (and I, and everyone else) pay for. There's no free lunch. When people are sick or injured, it's going to cost. It's expensive and it is unevenly distributed, and it is best done in a manner that works to control the costs (prophilactic care, etc.) by pooling our resources and then expending them on a per issue basis, and preventative ones, and in the context of completely addressing problems with an appropriate course of therapy instead of just doing the minimum, or nothing.
When you want to bitch about paying for everyone else's healthcare, to whatever extent that may be so, just remember, the better health the population is in, the better health you -- and yours, and the economy -- are are likely to be able to maintain. It's a fact, and there's no way around it.
Do you not understand that if you fall and break your leg, or catch something horrible, or develop chronic asthma, or cancer, or manage to detach a retina, or get burned really badly, that without insurance, your capital and wealth will evaporate like smoke on the windiest day you can imagine? I think you do, since you tell me you had insurance previously. Now I ask you: Would you want to have that happen to someone else? Seriously? When just by putting your shoulder to the same wheel the rest of us are trying to roll around, you can prevent it to some useful extent?
Ok. Delighted you're being forthcoming. Let's work it. If your new insurance is being delivered under the aegis of the ACA, then at $455/mo for your premium, you're paying $5460/year, and your income (after business deductions, if you're taking those) should be (at least) $54600, because under the ACA, no one has to pay more than 10% of their income unless t
No such damage has been demonstrated. Every such claim -- EVERY ONE -- so far has been debunked. Research it, you'll see immediately that these claims are consistently unfounded nonsense. We've got a guy right here, with an actual ID, making those claims, and you'll note he refuses to prove his case and simply indulges in name-calling, even though it would get him on national media if he did prove his case, likely ending his financial problems right there.
See, the FACT is, under the ACA, no one, that's NO ONE, pays more than 10% of their income. Which is not even to say they'll pay that much. Plans vary; choose to pay less, and you get less. Duh. You have to use your head just a little bit.
The ONLY ones who got hammered without it being their own darned fault here were those who were supposed to be covered under the medicaid expansion, where instead the state legislatures threw them directly under the bus by refusing it. That's a not a fault with the ACA. That's a fault with the state legislature.
The ACA is doing very well. The screaming is now known to be almost entirely political butthurt, and that's one disease I am not sorry to see people suffer.
So, you can't prove your claims.
You are therefore dismissed.
The most *anyone* pays under the ACA is less than 10% of their income.
If you can't afford that, it's time to reconsider your budget (and perhaps some behaviors... like smoking), because you're doing it wrong.
I'll tell you what you can't afford: injury or serious illness. If you think *insurance* is expensive, you have NO idea what's waiting for you just around the corner.
My lab tests are covered, as are my prescriptions. My copay is less, too -- $5 if they're in our group, and $10 if not -- Sounds to me like you simply picked the wrong policy. Make sure you look into equivalent meds, too. For instance, my insurance won't pay for Ventolin HFA, but they will pay for PROAIR HFA. Either one addresses the asthma just fine. I pay less than 10% of my income. I consider that a great bargain.
Again, your choice of policy is not the fault of the ACA. This is very much a situation where consumer choice is part of the process.
My daughter in law chose a different policy than the one my son chose. This was because she takes (expensive) Victoza shots, so she needed to choose a policy that met her needs, which were quite different from my son's. Thanks to the ACA, you can research and choose something that best meets your needs. But you still have to *do* it.
Again, I call bullshit. PROVE you had a policy with more benefits, that cost less, than an ACA sponsored policy: insurance company, the policy you were covered under, your age and state and what you were paying. Let's see the data.
I'm self-employed and the ACA was *hands-down* a better deal for myself, it was better for my self-employed lady, and better for my one son who is self-employed. All with radically different health states and histories. I would be *astounded* if your claims were true, and if so, you should go right to the right wing news media, because brother, have they ever been looking for someone who makes the claims you do and can back them up. Everyone so far has turned out to be completely full of shit.