While I might normally be inclined to agree with you, I have to point out that regulation in the healthcare industry is there for a very important reason. When you're dealing with human bodies and human lives, you need a very carefully regulated system to prevent someone's mistake from turning into a disaster that costs a lot of lives or causes a lot of harm.
For example, those annoying regulations that require extensive clinical trials and testing of new drugs are there for a very good reasons. They're in place to prevent disasters like what happened in West Germany and the UK in the 1950's, when the drug Thalidomide was okayed for sale without adequate testing.
I don't think it's fair to call someone who occasionally rents out their house an "unlicensed hotel." I gather that existing "bread and breakfast" operations with 5 rooms or less are already exempt from the ADA. And those are certainly more akin to hotels than some guy renting out a spare bedroom or his house for the weekend.
Lots of people are exempt from ADA requirements. Pretty much anyone renting or subletting a house or apartment in the U.S. is already exempt from these requirements and has been since the ADA was passed. Only a relatively small minority of apartments (usually a limited number of units in large complexes) in this country are handicap accessible, along with a very small percentage of houses (usually made so at the expense of the owner).
It was understood from the beginning that the ADA was meant for public accommodations and businesses doing new construction, NOT for private residences (it would have never passed otherwise). The fact that someone is temporarily renting out their private residence via Airbnb doesn't change the fact that these are still private residences.
If you want to know why self-driving cars are a LONG way off, just got to the self-checkout counter at your nearest major retailer. Notice the human sitting near the self-checkouts? Watch how many times said human has to come running to override a confused checkout computer that freaks out if someone does something as simple as prematurely move an item out of the bagging area. And keep in mind that this is the dirt-simple task of simply checking out a customer who is doing almost all the work themselves already.
If modern computers can't even manage to do something that simple, consistently without constant human intervention, do you really think they're anywhere near ready to handle the 1000x more complicated task of driving a car through poorly-marked city and rural streets without a human there to keep them from potentially causing major carnage?
Think about all the idiots on the road you see every day. Now think about how much more damage they could do in a super powerful aircraft bearing down at you from 200 feet in the air.
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
Most homes aren't handicap accessible. So I imagine hosts with houses with lots of stairs, etc. would have no choice but to turn away some handicapped people. Also, many people might fear that their home might even be dangerous for someone who's blind, deaf, etc. I used to live in a house that had a balcony with a low railing, for example. I sure wouldn't have wanted a blind person out there without someone to warn them.
At least Intel seems to be breaking away from the hype a bit, by delaying the self-driving future to 2035 instead of next year.
Yeah, I'll give them that. I've heard some pretty ridiculous hyperbole lately on the self-driving trend. Just look at ridiculous articles like this one (claiming that self-driving trucks will dominate the trucking industry within the next ten years):
I would also challenge the specific criticism critics are being unfair to raunchy comedies, fun family films, etc. over more complex films--and that's why these movies scored so poorly.
A good critic takes into account what a movie is trying to be and who it is aimed at when writing their review and figuring their score. No critic in their right mind is going to hold a movie like There's Something About Mary to the same standard as The Godfather. So I'm sure most critics were comparing Baywatch to other similar R-rated raunchy comedies, not complaining that it wasn't as good as Manchester by the Sea.
Yeah, pretty convenient for a movie called "Pirates of the Caribbean" to be basically hijacked by movie pirates.
I guarantee you they never reported this "hack" to the FBI, lest they face charges for a false report. Still it should be illegal for them to even claim it to the press if they know it's not true (that's fraud at best). A PR stunt that involves falsely claiming a criminal action seriously crosses the line.
No, I'm talking real jobs that pay a real living wage. The kind of jobs you don't have to be ashamed of. Not some $1/hr-I'm-forced-to-sweep-these-floors-to-collect-welfare job.
And it's not mandated. There will still be welfare for those who need it. It's for those who are unemployed and legitimately wanting to work. It's a way to ensure that no American who wants to work will ever have to worry about being unemployed ever again. Nor will anyone ever again have to be stuck in a shit job with no option to leave.
The problem with that is that under this scenario, we need a government department to determine who can do what job, and assign them accordingly. Then we need a department for those who cannot do any job (full disability). Then we need to determine who needs to get paid when they cannot do the job for a short period of time (disability). Then we need to agree when people can retire, and do not need to work any more (social security).
Good. More jobs.
We did it in the New Deal. Every day I drive past a hydroelectric dam that was built because FDR saw the value in providing the unemployed with meaningful work.
or you need to make up projects for tons of people.
Exactly. There are a ton of projects that need doing and it just takes the funding and wherewithal to make it happen. Just look at all the infrastructure repair projects that need doing in the U.S. And think about how much new infrastructure we could even ADD with these projects. Think fiber-optics to every house in the country, new light rails systems, giant solar plants, maybe even a revitalized space program.
They did it in the New Deal. They built the entire Tennessee Valley Authority dam system, got electricity to all the rural areas of the country, built a ton of parks, even sponsored writing projects, history projects, etc. That was real work that people could really take pride in. And that beats the hell out of a hand-out any day.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a ton of work needing to be done out there just isn't looking hard enough or thinking about everything that COULD be done.
Slashdot Mirror
How am I supposed to sexually harass the girls from the typing pool now if work is from home?
Maybe you should try focusing instead on actually selling radio ads, Herb.
While I might normally be inclined to agree with you, I have to point out that regulation in the healthcare industry is there for a very important reason. When you're dealing with human bodies and human lives, you need a very carefully regulated system to prevent someone's mistake from turning into a disaster that costs a lot of lives or causes a lot of harm.
For example, those annoying regulations that require extensive clinical trials and testing of new drugs are there for a very good reasons. They're in place to prevent disasters like what happened in West Germany and the UK in the 1950's, when the drug Thalidomide was okayed for sale without adequate testing.
It may also have once teemed with aliens from the planet Zardoz. We really don't have any conclusive evidence to say it *didn't*, after all.
Anything the person in charge doesn't want to hear.
I don't think it's fair to call someone who occasionally rents out their house an "unlicensed hotel." I gather that existing "bread and breakfast" operations with 5 rooms or less are already exempt from the ADA. And those are certainly more akin to hotels than some guy renting out a spare bedroom or his house for the weekend.
Lots of people are exempt from ADA requirements. Pretty much anyone renting or subletting a house or apartment in the U.S. is already exempt from these requirements and has been since the ADA was passed. Only a relatively small minority of apartments (usually a limited number of units in large complexes) in this country are handicap accessible, along with a very small percentage of houses (usually made so at the expense of the owner).
It was understood from the beginning that the ADA was meant for public accommodations and businesses doing new construction, NOT for private residences (it would have never passed otherwise). The fact that someone is temporarily renting out their private residence via Airbnb doesn't change the fact that these are still private residences.
If you want to know why self-driving cars are a LONG way off, just got to the self-checkout counter at your nearest major retailer. Notice the human sitting near the self-checkouts? Watch how many times said human has to come running to override a confused checkout computer that freaks out if someone does something as simple as prematurely move an item out of the bagging area. And keep in mind that this is the dirt-simple task of simply checking out a customer who is doing almost all the work themselves already.
If modern computers can't even manage to do something that simple, consistently without constant human intervention, do you really think they're anywhere near ready to handle the 1000x more complicated task of driving a car through poorly-marked city and rural streets without a human there to keep them from potentially causing major carnage?
Think about all the idiots on the road you see every day. Now think about how much more damage they could do in a super powerful aircraft bearing down at you from 200 feet in the air.
They also apparently also suppressed the Mr. Fusion devices we were supposed to have in our flying cars by now.
Should make for some really interesting wrecks at least.
Looking closer at the article, it appears that it didn't. Here's one quote that stood out:
Some hosts told guests in wheelchairs that they could come only if they had someone who could carry them up stairs.
Well...yeah. The host probably wasn't trying to be an asshole there, he was just being honest about the fact that his house wasn't wheelchair accessible. Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house? These are private residences, not hotels.
Most homes aren't handicap accessible. So I imagine hosts with houses with lots of stairs, etc. would have no choice but to turn away some handicapped people. Also, many people might fear that their home might even be dangerous for someone who's blind, deaf, etc. I used to live in a house that had a balcony with a low railing, for example. I sure wouldn't have wanted a blind person out there without someone to warn them.
At least Intel seems to be breaking away from the hype a bit, by delaying the self-driving future to 2035 instead of next year.
Yeah, I'll give them that. I've heard some pretty ridiculous hyperbole lately on the self-driving trend. Just look at ridiculous articles like this one (claiming that self-driving trucks will dominate the trucking industry within the next ten years):
Computers never crash.
Than most people seem to think. Even 2035 is being too optimistic.
I would also challenge the specific criticism critics are being unfair to raunchy comedies, fun family films, etc. over more complex films--and that's why these movies scored so poorly.
A good critic takes into account what a movie is trying to be and who it is aimed at when writing their review and figuring their score. No critic in their right mind is going to hold a movie like There's Something About Mary to the same standard as The Godfather. So I'm sure most critics were comparing Baywatch to other similar R-rated raunchy comedies, not complaining that it wasn't as good as Manchester by the Sea.
Her new campaign slogan will be "Hillary 2020: It's Everyone Else's Fault"
Opening weekend of new kid's movie, under existing system. Family of four:
Tickets: At least $40
Popcorn and concessions: At least $30
Opening weekend of new kid's movie, under "Screening Room." Family of four:
Theater cut: $20
Family Guy's excellent summary of Sears today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, what got me to stop going to Radio Shack was this:
Me: "I'm here to buy a capacitor"
Radio Shack: "We don't carry electronic components anymore. Can I interest you in an overpriced cellphone instead?"
Me:"Uh, no...do you at least have 9-volt batteries?"
Radio Shack: "Sure. That'll be $10.99. I'll need you address, phone number, and the names of all your children before I can ring you up though."
Yeah, pretty convenient for a movie called "Pirates of the Caribbean" to be basically hijacked by movie pirates.
I guarantee you they never reported this "hack" to the FBI, lest they face charges for a false report. Still it should be illegal for them to even claim it to the press if they know it's not true (that's fraud at best). A PR stunt that involves falsely claiming a criminal action seriously crosses the line.
No, I'm talking real jobs that pay a real living wage. The kind of jobs you don't have to be ashamed of. Not some $1/hr-I'm-forced-to-sweep-these-floors-to-collect-welfare job.
And it's not mandated. There will still be welfare for those who need it. It's for those who are unemployed and legitimately wanting to work. It's a way to ensure that no American who wants to work will ever have to worry about being unemployed ever again. Nor will anyone ever again have to be stuck in a shit job with no option to leave.
But if there are no such jobs for everyone?
Then you create them. I can think of a ton of infrastructure projects this country needs just off the top of my head.
The problem with that is that under this scenario, we need a government department to determine who can do what job, and assign them accordingly. Then we need a department for those who cannot do any job (full disability). Then we need to determine who needs to get paid when they cannot do the job for a short period of time (disability). Then we need to agree when people can retire, and do not need to work any more (social security).
Good. More jobs.
We did it in the New Deal. Every day I drive past a hydroelectric dam that was built because FDR saw the value in providing the unemployed with meaningful work.
or you need to make up projects for tons of people.
Exactly. There are a ton of projects that need doing and it just takes the funding and wherewithal to make it happen. Just look at all the infrastructure repair projects that need doing in the U.S. And think about how much new infrastructure we could even ADD with these projects. Think fiber-optics to every house in the country, new light rails systems, giant solar plants, maybe even a revitalized space program.
They did it in the New Deal. They built the entire Tennessee Valley Authority dam system, got electricity to all the rural areas of the country, built a ton of parks, even sponsored writing projects, history projects, etc. That was real work that people could really take pride in. And that beats the hell out of a hand-out any day.
Anyone who thinks there isn't a ton of work needing to be done out there just isn't looking hard enough or thinking about everything that COULD be done.