Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Must be an american thing ??? (Score 1) 64

by mcgrew (#47960513) Attached to: More unsurprisingly conservative ads on slashdot

If you get a cataract, spend the extra money on a CrystaLens. Unlike 45 year old natural lenses and implants available before 2003, they will actually focus. Of course they're under patent so they're about a thousand dollars each more expensive than other implants. I'm sure I'll have a cataract in the other eye not too long from now, the last eye doctor I saw said "a couple of years" and it's been longer than that.

I think I'll wait until 2023 when the patent runs out and everybody makes them, the ones like my mom has will be obsolete. I only use that eye to look at tiny things, anyway.

Insurance paid for all but the extra thousand, it was the best thousand dollars I ever spent. The device inside my eye is my favorite device of all.

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 324

Spending for the general welfare (and the passage I quoted appears to cover spending only) is indeed a very sweeping clause, but it's there, and I'm interpreting it as the Supreme Court does. The opinions of the Supreme Court are more important than the opinion of a guy who helped write it. This does not cover (and the Supreme Court agrees) anything but spending. For example, when the Feds wanted to impose a 55 mph speed limit, they couldn't legislate it. They had to threaten to withhold funding for states that didn't go along. The "general welfare" clause does not permit other actions; the NSA claims (however speciously) that their surveillance is legal and conforms with the Fourth Amendment.

This wasn't as significant a clause when the Feds didn't have much money, and became much more significant when the income tax became Constitutional. On the other hand, there are situations when the Federal government badly needs loads of money, such as when fighting a war.

Comment: Re:Known for a long time (Score 1) 218

by Reziac (#47954451) Attached to: Study: Chimpanzees Have Evolved To Kill Each Other

Absolutely true. Canids and felids in particular hunt more for sport than for food. Wolves have been observed having all sorts of fun killing an entire flock of sheep. Foxes hunt and kill mice and birds without eating 'em. And I used to have a cat who did nothing but hunt gophers all day long; within 3 years he'd completely exterminated them in my neighborhood.

Incidentally my neighbor runs a twice-weekly foxhunt, tho the usual quarry is coyotes (mostly chasing, they usually don't shoot 'em). The local coyotes have gotten so into being chased by dogs that they come down to the kennel the night before a hunt and get the dogs all riled up and ready to go.

Comment: Re:Recent claims by whom? (Score 1) 218

by Reziac (#47954405) Attached to: Study: Chimpanzees Have Evolved To Kill Each Other

Female dogs that have never had pups will often kill puppies. Presumably fewer of someone else's offspring means more resources when you have your own.

[This is a consistent enough behavior that I warn clients in no uncertain terms to never ever leave the new puppy alone with the adult dog, most especially the spayed female adult dog.]

Comment: Re:Must be an american thing ??? (Score 1) 64

by mcgrew (#47953295) Attached to: More unsurprisingly conservative ads on slashdot

The whole "needles in the eyeball" are just a stepping stone to something truly amazing.

Indeed. I was severely nearsighted all my life, after the cataract surgery I no longer need corrective lenses at all, not even reading glasses and I'm 62. My vision in that eye went from 20/400 to 20/16. Truly a miracle.

BTW, my retina surgeon said that my retinal detachment was a result of being so nearsighted; a nearsighted eyeball isn't perfectly round like a normally sighted person's eyes.

Comment: Re:CRTC needs to be reined in (Score 1) 316

by vux984 (#47952545) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Killing a non-competitive industry

What's non-competitive about it? You think other tax jurisdictions aren't playing the same game?

But in the long-term, a more competitive and stronger industry will emerge.

Or it will nestle somewhere else where it can squeeze the local government for some concessions. I'd rather the jobs be in Canada than elsewhere. The candian content regulations provide some unique leverage over the industry. The tax breaks are the carrot... and the canadian content regulations (that they qualify under if its produced significantly within canada) is the stick.

Just as the US and Canada should never have rescued the auto-makers when they imploded

I agree they handled it pretty poorly, but letting it collapse would have been stupid too. The country would not be better if all those jobs, and supply chains, and the service industries supported by that industry had all collapsed like a string of dominoes. Sure the market would have corrected itself and sorted itself out after a 'great depression', but millions of people still have to eat in the meantime. That's a huge drain on the economy, and an incubator for crime and even real civil unrest. Far better to prop up the industry up with bridge financing then to put them all on various welfare programs.

They handled it poorly though. Those who were responsible for manufacturing the crisis should have been reduced to poverty.

Comment: Re:Business (Score 2) 256

by mrchaotica (#47951645) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Avoid Becoming a Complacent Software Developer?

JSON is a pretty significant force behind modern Web design. Without it, the Web would still be a pretty static place.

Nah, we'd just be putting actual XML in our XMLHTTPRequests instead. (All JSON does is represent the same data as the XML would, in a less verbose format.) We'd still have all the Asynchronous Javascript And XML.

Error in operator: add beer