No, it isn't legal. Look up Impeding Traffic. You aren't allowed to impede the normal flow of traffic, even if that traffic is violating the law.
--
JimFive

You are confusing "Controlled Airspace" with FAA jurisdiction. Unless otherwise classified (by the FAA) airspace below (I think) 700 feet above ground level is uncontrolled (Class G) airspace. Each airspace classification has specific rules for its use. The FAA still has jurisdiction even the airspace is uncontrolled.
--
JimFive

First: 240/mo is pretty close to 3K/yr so the premiums are about the same. 3K deductible seems pretty high, but in the individual market is probably fairly normal. You might note that there are certain things (annual wellness visit, etc) that are covered even before the deductible is met.

As for "Why not remove so many of the minimums...(...I don't need prenatal coverage)" The answer is: The exchanges are an attempt to bring the benefits of group rating as enjoyed by employer sponsored insurance to the individual market. Those benefits include preexisting condition coverage and overall lower premiums. The cost of those benefits is that everyone in the group gets the same coverage. So, while you, personally, may not need prenatal coverage, people in your group that are helping to keep your insurance rates more stable and (hopefully) lower than they otherwise would be will need that coverage. Likewise, coverage of contraception keeps rates lower because pregnancy is expensive.

Now, are there going to be people for whom the new system is worse than the old one? Sure. And if you're one of them it kind of sucks. But the expectation is that the people who are harmed will have enough options to be able to deal with that harm while those who are being helped did not have any options without the implementation of this law.
--
JimFive

Interesting, but since Aristotle was Greek what word did he use where we use spade (and what did/does it mean)? A (very) cursory google didn't come up with anything.

Well they could, but the provider doesn't have a pipe to the ISP, the provider has a pipe to their own ISP (Let's call it BackBone) and the consumer ISP also has a pipe to BackBone. The provider and the consumer ISP are both paying for their own pipe and the Customer is is paying the consumer ISP for access to that pipe. In this diagram there is no business relationship between e.g. NetFlix and Comcast and any effort by Comcast to get NetFlix to pay is basically extortion (nice user base you got there, be a pity if something happened to it). It might also be fraud as the Comcast customers are paying for a connection to the broader internet, not just those entities that Comcast "likes".

If NetFlix wants a faster pipe to Comcast customers they could certainly negotiate with Comcast to by a direct connection into the Comcast network and cut out BackBone.

None of this is meant to imply that Comcast can't do traffic shaping on their network, but that shaping should be part of improving the customer experience, not blackmailing content providers.
--
JimFive

And then they realize that everyone needs cars at the same time. Rush hour doesn't go away just because cars are autonomous.

Autonomous rental cars are going to need to be cleaned, or at least inspected, after every use because no one wants a car that smells like someone else's cigarettes--or vomit.

There are reasons that owning a car is cheaper than renting a car for most people. Those reasons don't disappear with autonomous cars. The cost discrepancy might go down, but if I have to rent a car to and from work every day and to the store once a week and on the weekends to visit the parents or go to the beach, I might as well buy a car.

What autonomous cars might do is decrease the need for every household to have 2 or more cars.
--
JimFive

No, they wouldn't because they wouldn't have free will either. If we have no free will then the world that we see is exactly the world that would exist because this is what we have in that deterministic universe. You can never say "If we had no free will then <something would be different>". If the world is deterministic then this is the world that is determined.
--
JimFive

Ok, you're wrong. The mentions of citizen in the constitution revolve around jurisdiction of the courts and eligibility for office. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention citizens at all and the mentions of citizens in the remaining amendments are related to voting rights. Even the 14th amendment says

Which makes it clear that the word person is not limited to citizens. In addition, as others have mentioned, the constitution enumerates (an incomplete list of) rights but does not grant them.
--
JimFive

Nothing. When is the last time that protests actually caused a policy shift in the US? 1776? Protests in the 1930's didn't, protests over Vietnam, Occupy? Nothing. The civil rights protests of the 1960's is the only thing that comes to mind and I'm not sure about those.
--
JimFive

As I understand it, the actual problem is with group plans in which different aspects of insurance are managed by different entities, e.g. your medical insurance is Blue Cross, your dental is Delta, and your prescriptions are Caremark. The ACA says the individual annual out of pocket maximum is ~$6000, however, Blue Cross, Spectera and Aetna don't know how much the member has paid the other companies because they don't talk to each other. The problem isn't actually technical so much as bureaucratic.
--
JimFive

I think it is important to emphasize this. And also to recognize that these are NOT "ride-sharing services", they are taxis. Ride Sharing would not have dedicated drivers taking people places, it would have people going places offering space in a car.
--
JimFive

Well, no, marriage has been about property rights and inheritance for a lot longer than it has been religious.

Because along with the benefits of marriage come the responsibilities of marriage. You are agreeing to support the other person for, ideally, the rest of your lives. You are easing the burden on society and society rewards that by giving you a tax break.

By the way, the tax break for being married really only occurs when one person makes a decent amount of money and the other person earns very little. In that case, you are (basically) taxed as if you each made the average which generally puts you into a lower tax bracket. If you both make the same amount of money, or both make a lot of money (even if disparate) then their is no benefit and sometimes a increase in taxes (due to deduction limits) over begin single.
--
JimFive

Did you see the story about the Boston parking auction where 2 spaces went for ~$600,000?
--
JimFive

I actually like the integrated browser that allows me to swipe to the next feedly story after looking at the website. What I don't like is how slow/laggy the interface is trying to get into the first story.
--
JimFive

I may not be understanding your suggestion, but I'm not so sure this would work in an environment that has 1500 practically identical rooms each of which have an identical sink and where leaning forward to look down at and manipulate things (such as a patient) is common.
--
JimFive