Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Having a Surgeon General would help (Score 1) 178

The only qualifications the man whom Obama has nominated for the post has for the post is that he has unwaveringly supported Obama. In doing so, he has advocated for politicizing a position which has traditionally been as non-political as possible (there have been Surgeon-Generals in the past who took political stances on public health issues, but everyone agreed that they were public health issues, this guy appears to want to use "public health" to advance his political agenda). As a result, the Democrats in the Senate are unwilling to support his nomination (the Republicans positions are irrelevant since they cannot stop the Democrats from confirming him no matter what they do).

Comment: Most effective counter to fear (Score 2) 178

The most effective counter to the epidemic of fear this article talks about is for the government to convince people that it is following an effective policy to address the dangers. Unfortunately, our politicians have gotten the idea that the best way to do that is to manage the "optics" of the situation. As a result, people are convinced that the government's responses to this danger are designed more to convince people that the government is doing the right thing that to actually DO the right thing.

Comment: Re:(Re:The Children!) Why? I'm not a pedophile! (Score 2) 281

by Attila Dimedici (#48164461) Attached to: FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
Others have pointed out that your interpretation is wrong and explain why. However, even if your argument was correct, you reach the wrong conclusion because the Framers of the Constitution addressed the issue of technology that did not yet exist in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution did not explicitly grant the federal government the power, that power is denied to the federal government.

Comment: Re:Awesome quote (Score 4, Insightful) 232

The whole business is fishy as hell. 29 states and in not one single location do they compete. The only reason they get away with it is because ...

they were banned from entering the market the other company was in when cable franchises were handed out in the first place (well, in most areas, they were banned from entering even the markets they are in, but they bought the companies that had been granted the franchise for that area).
The problem exists because our government created it. The cable monopolies did not start with the cable companies (although they worked to encourage it once it started).

Comment: Re:Awesome quote (Score 1) 232

Comcast and Time Warner did not "voluntarily" choose not to compete. They were each given monopolies in certain areas and then bought up the other companies which had been given monopolies in other areas. Back when cable TV was new, local governments were given the power to limit who could provide cable service int their area. As a result, most local governments (if not all), issued only one permit to provide cable service. The justification for this was that cable TV was a "natural monopoly". Local jurisdictions which faced push back on the "natural monopoly" argument, argued that by granting monopoly status to a cable provider they could require them to give service to the entire municipality (or portion of the municipality in larger cities, some of which initially divided the city up between providers...long since all bought out by the same company in most cases).
While Comcast and Time-Warner could possibly have overcome this restriction to compete with each other, why would they? What would they gain from spending the amount of money it would take to overcome the regulatory obstacles to competing with each other? The likelihood of smaller profit margins and the significant possibility smaller total profits.

Comment: Re:A bit early (Score 1) 279

by Attila Dimedici (#48139189) Attached to: Who's In Charge During the Ebola Crisis?
Yes, the hospital retracted its claim. However, the questions is, did they retract their claim because the EHR system was supplied by a powerfully connected company, a company which has the majority market share for EHR systems, despite not following the laws requirements for inter-connectivity to competitors systems (at least according to several sources I have come across. I have not taken the time to confirm the information).

Comment: Re:Ok, but (Score 1) 578

by Attila Dimedici (#48123935) Attached to: FBI Says It Will Hire No One Who Lies About Illegal Downloading
While you are correct that the person running the test may interpret the results based on their opinion of you, most of the time, the test is used to determine how nervous you are when answering a question. The assumption being that if you are lying you will be more nervous than if you are telling the truth. So that even if the person running the test is genuinely attempting to get an accurate reading, it does not actually mean anything. This means that anyone with sufficient self-discipline (and in the case of a polygraph test, "sufficient" is a fairly low bar) can pass an honestly administered lie detector test while lying through their teeth.

Comment: Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score 1) 213

by Attila Dimedici (#48117125) Attached to: NASA Finds a Delaware-Sized Methane "Hot Spot" In the Southwest
I did not say "it pre-dates fracking". I said that the article said that it pre-dates fracking....to be exact, the article quotes the researchers behind this discovery of saying that it pre-dates fracking. So perhaps you should accuse them of talking about things which they know nothing about rather than myself, who merely relayed (and made clear that I was doing so) what they said.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James

Working...