The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is designed to prevent this. There are also supplementary state laws in, for example, Oregon and New Jersey.
I'm quite sure that if the insurers find something wrong with your genes, they can come up with a creative non-gene-related reason for not offering you insurance. Have fun proving that you were discriminated against because of your genes.
When will we admit that there are genetic differences? For example, most East Asians suffer from lactose intolerance. Europeans do not.
You got that the wrong way . It should be: Most Europeans are mutant freaks that tolerate lactose as adults, while most East Asians still have the normal version of the genes that prevent the consumption of milk by adults (like most other mammals do).
That adult mammals do not tolerate lactose is the norm. Hence the lactose tolerance of Europeans is the exception.
Hell, it would probably make their *decade*. Imagine being able to pull up right next to an airliner and wave at the crew, probably making a "YOU EEEEDIOTS!!!" expression (even though it may not be visible due to their helmet/mask)
Libertarians are big on the "my stuff" thing. If they criticise other people for doing with "their stuff" (in this case: software they wrote) whatever the hell they want, they're not really libertarians.
The planets we see are mostly Very Big Rocks, or gas giants. It'll take a while to see smaller, more earthlike planets.
It doesn't take time, just someone to fork over a couple of billion dollars. The technology already exists, it's just that no one wants to spend the money to actually get it to space.
Funny how much time they spend scrutinizing players who "cannot create a significant edge", isn't it?
High deck-count shoes and early shuffle threshold make card counting a non-factor, but they have their own disadvantages to the casino, namely lowering the number of games that can be played per unit of time, which in turn lowers the casinos profit. Hence, it's more profitable to the casino to deal with card-counters in other ways.
What does a CT get that an MRI can't that justifies making it the default option?
They are different tools for different jobs. CT is great for imaging bone structures, something that MRI sucks at. The resolution of CT is still higher than MRI, and of course CT scans can be done much faster than MRI scans. They're down to, what, a few seconds now? I had my last CT scan over 25 years ago, and it took half a fricken' hour. I had an MRI a few months later, and that to THREE AND A HALF freakin' HOURS. Since then, I've had checkup MRIs ever couple of years, and thankfully they only take about half an hour now.
Also, neither CT scans nor MRI scans use _radioactive_ contrast agents. Contrast agents for MRI scans need to have certain magnetic properties, while contrast agents for CT scans need to block x-rays. Neither of these require the agent to be radioactive. You're probably confusing it with SPECT/PET/scintgraphy scans, which indeed require the use of radioactive substances (not as contrast agents, but as part of the scan).
No, the _some_ high rollers win, too. That's simply because compared to the house, their funds are still negligible. If they had anywhere near the houses level of funds, they wouldn't be high rollers, they would have their own casino. Of course, you don't hear about _all_ the high rollers that lose. You may here about some of them, it gets people excited. "Hey, I could own that rich dudes money if I win!"
Every time you hear about someone winning big, that is because the casino bosses want you to hear about it so you think there is a "chance" to win.
Of course there's a chance to win. There's also more than one chance to lose. People win the lottery all the time, too. That doesn't mean that running the lottery isn't hugely profitable (probably more than any casino. Compared to common casino games, the average payout of a lottery is pretty close to zero).
The way banks and other financial services companies operate these days, working in gambling would be a GREAT introduction to the world of credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities.
No. Gambling companies know what they are doing, have the math to back up that claim, and they know that they will win.
Sorry, but I don't understand why a circularization burn is needed.
Because if an object accelerates at one point of its orbit, then the new orbit will still include the point at which the acceleration occurred. At least that's what I remember.
Couldn't the initial boost be tuned, so that the object wouldn't make an complete escape?
Well, you could try to fire it away from Earth so it doesn't come back. But if you accelerate it from the surface of Earth with less velocity than needed to escape forever, then the "orbit" will include the surface of the earth unless you do a circularization burn while you're in space.
I think the simple rule was: If you accelerate at the highest point of the orbit, then the lowest point of the orbit will rise, and if you accelerate at the lowest point of the orbit, then the highest point will rise. Hence, if you accelerate when the object is farthest from Earth, you can lift the lowest point of the orbit (which would be on Earths surface) far enough away from Earth so the object doesn't reenter.
You cannot structurally put the exit of the tunnel high enough to completely avoid the atmosphere.
That's mostly a matter of making a pile of rocks that's high enough (wouldn't even require any fancy new materials if you're willing to bring half a million bulldozers). And bypassing all of the atmosphere isn't necessary, but bypassing most of it would be nice.
If you could - why not just build a space elevator or even space "tower" or "needle"?
Because piling stuff 10 km high is obviously harder than piling it 100 km (or more) high.
If you're in the business of hugely expensive, why not scrap the whole super-fast airlock and put the exit of the launch tube far enough from Earths surface that the density of the atmosphere isn't a problem anymore?
Otherwise, you still have to deal with heat shield, transition to the atmosphere and whatnot (i.e. the payload will have to be heavier to accomodate for all the shielding), while constructing the launch tube is a problem that can be solved on Earth and doesn't require carrying the solution into space.
Making the launch system more efficient is best done by leaving as much of it as possible on Earth, and only carry to space what's going to be used in space.
I'm wondering about how they would intercept and retrieve the payload once it is in orbit. The amount of kinetic energy it retains from getting to orbit (I'd assume, likely incorrectly, IANARS) would still be pretty massive problem to tackle.
That's not an issue. _Anything_ "in orbit" has quite a bit of velocity, else it'd simply fall down. The ISS, for example, is moving at about 7.5 km/s relative to Earth.
In fact, the gun wouldn't put anything in an orbit by itself, since the trajectory of the projectile will intersect Earth. The projectile still needs a rocket motor to actually enter orbit, as the article says.
I bet that if some patient catches H1N1 while in the hospital, the lawyers will be _all over_ the fact that the hospital administration negligently did not have the staff vaccinated against it faster than you can say "megabucks in damages".
Is ridiculous. You have to fill in a list where you have to mark all things with the obvious answer if you want to get in. This of course regardless of anything on there is true or not. Have you ever used drugs? Who is ever going to answer yes to that on a form. It's just for the feeling of safety. I refuse to take part in that kind of moral pressure to lie.
You don't understand the purpose of the list. The list just gives them another charge to tack on to the list if you're caught committing a crime in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is designed to prevent this. There are also supplementary state laws in, for example, Oregon and New Jersey.
I'm quite sure that if the insurers find something wrong with your genes, they can come up with a creative non-gene-related reason for not offering you insurance. Have fun proving that you were discriminated against because of your genes.
Insurance is gambling.
Running an insurance company is as much gambling as running a casino is. In other words: Not very much.
Unless they grow a third arm for shifting, anyway.
When will we admit that there are genetic differences? For example, most East Asians suffer from lactose intolerance. Europeans do not.
You got that the wrong way . It should be: Most Europeans are mutant freaks that tolerate lactose as adults, while most East Asians still have the normal version of the genes that prevent the consumption of milk by adults (like most other mammals do).
That adult mammals do not tolerate lactose is the norm. Hence the lactose tolerance of Europeans is the exception.
Hell, it would probably make their *decade*. Imagine being able to pull up right next to an airliner and wave at the crew, probably making a "YOU EEEEDIOTS!!!" expression (even though it may not be visible due to their helmet/mask)
That's what sign language is for.
What, you've never seen "Top Gun"?
I think I know who has proven to be worthy of their geek card and who has to hand theirs in.
Libertarians are big on the "my stuff" thing. If they criticise other people for doing with "their stuff" (in this case: software they wrote) whatever the hell they want, they're not really libertarians.
The planets we see are mostly Very Big Rocks, or gas giants. It'll take a while to see smaller, more earthlike planets.
It doesn't take time, just someone to fork over a couple of billion dollars. The technology already exists, it's just that no one wants to spend the money to actually get it to space.
Funny how much time they spend scrutinizing players who "cannot create a significant edge", isn't it?
High deck-count shoes and early shuffle threshold make card counting a non-factor, but they have their own disadvantages to the casino, namely lowering the number of games that can be played per unit of time, which in turn lowers the casinos profit. Hence, it's more profitable to the casino to deal with card-counters in other ways.
They are different tools for different jobs. CT is great for imaging bone structures, something that MRI sucks at. The resolution of CT is still higher than MRI, and of course CT scans can be done much faster than MRI scans. They're down to, what, a few seconds now? I had my last CT scan over 25 years ago, and it took half a fricken' hour. I had an MRI a few months later, and that to THREE AND A HALF freakin' HOURS. Since then, I've had checkup MRIs ever couple of years, and thankfully they only take about half an hour now.
Also, neither CT scans nor MRI scans use _radioactive_ contrast agents. Contrast agents for MRI scans need to have certain magnetic properties, while contrast agents for CT scans need to block x-rays. Neither of these require the agent to be radioactive. You're probably confusing it with SPECT/PET/scintgraphy scans, which indeed require the use of radioactive substances (not as contrast agents, but as part of the scan).
rare medium well-done
The high rollers do not win.
No, the _some_ high rollers win, too. That's simply because compared to the house, their funds are still negligible. If they had anywhere near the houses level of funds, they wouldn't be high rollers, they would have their own casino. Of course, you don't hear about _all_ the high rollers that lose. You may here about some of them, it gets people excited. "Hey, I could own that rich dudes money if I win!"
Every time you hear about someone winning big, that is because the casino bosses want you to hear about it so you think there is a "chance" to win.
Of course there's a chance to win. There's also more than one chance to lose. People win the lottery all the time, too. That doesn't mean that running the lottery isn't hugely profitable (probably more than any casino. Compared to common casino games, the average payout of a lottery is pretty close to zero).
Don't get me wrong - I didn't say the machines "cheat"... They arguably play the fairest games ever in the history of gambling.
So they're like a die that always rolls 3.5?
The way banks and other financial services companies operate these days, working in gambling would be a GREAT introduction to the world of credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities.
No. Gambling companies know what they are doing, have the math to back up that claim, and they know that they will win.
Sorry, but I don't understand why a circularization burn is needed.
Because if an object accelerates at one point of its orbit, then the new orbit will still include the point at which the acceleration occurred. At least that's what I remember.
Couldn't the initial boost be tuned, so that the object wouldn't make an complete escape?
Well, you could try to fire it away from Earth so it doesn't come back. But if you accelerate it from the surface of Earth with less velocity than needed to escape forever, then the "orbit" will include the surface of the earth unless you do a circularization burn while you're in space.
I think the simple rule was: If you accelerate at the highest point of the orbit, then the lowest point of the orbit will rise, and if you accelerate at the lowest point of the orbit, then the highest point will rise. Hence, if you accelerate when the object is farthest from Earth, you can lift the lowest point of the orbit (which would be on Earths surface) far enough away from Earth so the object doesn't reenter.
You cannot structurally put the exit of the tunnel high enough to completely avoid the atmosphere.
That's mostly a matter of making a pile of rocks that's high enough (wouldn't even require any fancy new materials if you're willing to bring half a million bulldozers). And bypassing all of the atmosphere isn't necessary, but bypassing most of it would be nice.
If you could - why not just build a space elevator or even space "tower" or "needle"?
Because piling stuff 10 km high is obviously harder than piling it 100 km (or more) high.
Some French guy named Jules called from the 19th century, he wants his idea back.
Actually, if the acceleration is constant, it's quadratic, not exponential.
s = 0.5 * a * t^2
Because this process is hugely ineffective and couldn't produce hydrogen at "market" rates. Also, hydrogen is a major PITA to work with.
This would be hugely expensive to build,
If you're in the business of hugely expensive, why not scrap the whole super-fast airlock and put the exit of the launch tube far enough from Earths surface that the density of the atmosphere isn't a problem anymore?
Otherwise, you still have to deal with heat shield, transition to the atmosphere and whatnot (i.e. the payload will have to be heavier to accomodate for all the shielding), while constructing the launch tube is a problem that can be solved on Earth and doesn't require carrying the solution into space.
Making the launch system more efficient is best done by leaving as much of it as possible on Earth, and only carry to space what's going to be used in space.
I'm wondering about how they would intercept and retrieve the payload once it is in orbit. The amount of kinetic energy it retains from getting to orbit (I'd assume, likely incorrectly, IANARS) would still be pretty massive problem to tackle.
That's not an issue. _Anything_ "in orbit" has quite a bit of velocity, else it'd simply fall down. The ISS, for example, is moving at about 7.5 km/s relative to Earth.
In fact, the gun wouldn't put anything in an orbit by itself, since the trajectory of the projectile will intersect Earth. The projectile still needs a rocket motor to actually enter orbit, as the article says.
I bet that if some patient catches H1N1 while in the hospital, the lawyers will be _all over_ the fact that the hospital administration negligently did not have the staff vaccinated against it faster than you can say "megabucks in damages".
People who bother to get flu shots do so because they are more at risk of catching the flu (regardless of the type)?
You don't understand the purpose of the list. The list just gives them another charge to tack on to the list if you're caught committing a crime in the US.
"Method for intentionally introducing flaws in products."