Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Distinct DNA (Score 1) 1330

by Grizzley9 (#47365711) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

here's the key issue: Does it have a nervous system, and does that nervous system couple to something sophisticated enough to convert those signals into suffering?

Wow, that's your reasoning?! Nervous system + suffering? Make sure you never fall asleep or get put under for surgery or go into a coma. Or better yet don't get instantly killed in any way since you would not suffer. I'm not sure it's the others that are using "hucksterism of philosophy".

Comment: Re:Distinct DNA (Score 1) 1330

by Grizzley9 (#47365679) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

These are all unique "organisms" according to this philosophy. If birth control causes fertilized eggs to pass through, and they naturally do this quite often, then we should rush to research how to prevent all of these natural abortions, right?>

This is true that normal contraception meds can cause the fertilized egg to not implant and be abortive. It's why due to moral stances, my wife and I decided to quit the pill--for birth control--and relied on the numerous other means to prevent fertilization.

Comment: Re:A win for freedom (Score 1) 1330

by Grizzley9 (#47365657) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception
The 401k angle all the left leaning blogs are touting is a red herring and everyone knows it.

SCOTUS just provided them the same exception your wife would have to deal with if she worked for a religious institution or church that decided to not cover it. As the majority opinion stated, there's already a system setup for that where the government provides said insurance due to the moral objections to specific medicine of the religious employer, they just granted these closely held religious companies in the same grouping.

Your "little blue pills" statement is also not the same and has no weight here. HL still provides over 15 kinds of contraception in their plans.

Regardless of this decision perhaps it will lead to getting employers out of providing insurance altogether and we can have single payer.

Comment: Re:Can an "atheist company" refuse too? (Score 1) 1330

by Grizzley9 (#47359593) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

That's kind of the crux of the matter, isn't it? A month of generic birth control pills costs about $10/mo. Purchased in bulk, condoms are about $0.50/ea. Both are readily available at no cost from a variety of sources for those who can't afford them. Setting aside the heated political debate, it seems foolish to route these sorts of purchases through your insurance company, with inevitable overhead, rather than simply purchasing them yourself.

Great! The people least able to afford a pregnancy can only get the least-effective forms of birth control! Awesome! That's definitely not a bad idea.

Or we can offer them any method they want, including far more effective and foolproof ones (IUD, implant, etc.), all at the same cost, which is what the mandate is about.

So generics are not as good as expensive name brands in FDA regulated items? Seems you're making the fallacy of more expensive equals more effective.

Comment: Re:Lower cost for H1B ? In your dreams .... (Score 1) 341

by Grizzley9 (#47336991) Attached to: If Immigration Reform Is Dead, So Is Raising the H-1B Cap

I have first hand experience with it - and it's clear, as the message came from the top to drive down wages... look for foreign workers. Laws be dammed, particularly in right to work states. It's a sad but real truth to this situation of immigration. Is it everywhere - of course not - but I'd wager mostly everywhere.

While not exactly the same, my companies policy is the same. Huge multi-national firm everyone knows. You cannot hire Americans. New hires can only be from low cost countries, not H1B - they work in that country remotely. Being a multi-national company it's not that bad but companies don't want to pay American wages and benefits.

Comment: Re:No steering wheel? No deal. (Score 1) 583

by Grizzley9 (#47108195) Attached to: Google Unveils Self-Driving Car With No Steering Wheel

The Google car has done something like 700,000 miles and crashed twice. Both times this occurred, it was under control of the human occupant.

This is quoted all the time, but how do you prove it? The car always has a driver behind the wheel. What's to say that any accidents are blamed on the driver as a way of Google PR protecting their pet project while they fix the bugs (actually that's a smart move for them).

Comment: Re:It'd be nice if Glass was unleashed. (Score 1) 39

by Grizzley9 (#47107337) Attached to: Google Glass and the Future of Wearable Gaming

I wore them for a full day out and about and while they got a few looks nobody said anything at all.

There will be mixed reactions even if some are too polite to say anything. I love tech and am wanting to try these but a guy had them on near me at a restaurant and I just wanted to tell him to take it off. Google hasn't perfected the social acceptance yet.

Comment: So many assumptions (Score 1) 626

by Grizzley9 (#47049837) Attached to: Driverless Cars Could Cripple Law Enforcement Budgets
This has one big assumption that those that are speeding do so unintentionally. Given the freedom and love of driving we have, I don't see auto driving becoming mandatory. This also assumes there won't be a way to shut off auto-driving.

TL;DR There will still be plenty of opportunities for tickets.

Comment: Re:Apocalypse? (Score 1) 293

by Grizzley9 (#46928943) Attached to: The Upcoming Windows 8.1 Apocalypse

Doesn't this happen every time they come out with a major update?

My thoughts as well. I have a Eee Netbook that could never update to Win7 Service Pack 1 due to some mysterious issue that always failed no matter what I tried. Numerous hours and forums later, I just gave up since it's just a netbook and works fine for what it does and just install numerous small updates.

Comment: Re:How low can you go?(power density) (Score 1) 152

Scientists have speculated for decades about the possibility that these may have been slightly different in the distant past - and thus the laws of physics would not be exactly the same.

This is quite controversial, mavericky science because it's very hard to test -

If it's not testable, then by definition it is not science.

Now there's no proof the fundamental constants have changed at all since the big bang, but there's no proof they haven't... By factoring in those different values we could possibly explain a lot of the other things which currently remain open questions.

So while it's unlikely - it's nevertheless and most decidedly NOT bollocks.

Then it's not science.

It's maverick science for sure

"Maverick Science". Made up definitions still don't get you to a testable theory.

Comment: Re:Apple stole nothing (Score 1) 194

by Grizzley9 (#46766825) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry
This. Why doesn't Apple simply implement a "CarPlay" function on the phones screen so when you get in your car to drive it can switch over. 4-6 big buttons for common apps like Maps, Music, search, or phone, Siri is active so voice commands can be used, BT is turned on so it can interface with the car system. An option to either read texts/email to you (and reply via voice) or a function to quick reply to the sender that I am driving and can't respond right now but will shortly. Heck even add an OBD dongle to your car that can give you real time data on all your mileage, fuel, computer codes, etc.

Adding a simple bracket to your car to hold your phone is going to be much better than some hacked and expensive car stereo interface that won't receive timely updates. LifeHacker did an interesting article yesterday about the apps available to interface with OBD dongles. Surely someone can perfect that interface and make it useful? Either way, the car interface of today is hopelessly out of touch with modern tech and usefulness. All these things can be accomplished without leading to more distractions and can actually improve road attentiveness.

Comment: Re:Quantum fluctuations != nothing (Score 1) 612

This is an abuse of the word "nothing", which is a universal negation "not anything". But quantum fluctuations in the quantum vacuum are something, and not nothing. The research might be interesting, but it does nothing for the question the philosopher is asking when he is wondering "Why there is somerthing rather than nothing?"

Exactly. Lawrence Krauss and others are trying to redefine "nothing" for there own personal theories and world view (he's an atheist). I guess that's understandable from that viewpoint, but you can make a lot of interesting theories if you redefine terms to fit your own meaning.

"You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

Working...