Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Uncertainty/fear? (Score 1) 541

by jammer170 (#47525837) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

I can't say definitively, but at the time I worked around lasers (my boss jokingly offered to perform the LASIK at my place of work for free), and despite using it to melt away segments of other materials, I can say it didn't smell like that. I don't doubt that there may have been a smell of ozone (and other components) that we smelled during the process, but I definitely think it was more than that.

Comment: Re:Uncertainty/fear? (Score 5, Informative) 541

by jammer170 (#47525323) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

That's not entirely accurate, and to me is high on the scare-factor. As someone who has had LASIK, here is the full procudure:

They have you come in and lie down on a table. They then use a very small device, really nothing more than just a couple of wires, to prop your eyelid open. Next, they do use a very tiny bit of suction to pull on the eyeball (I couldn't really feel it, but your mileage may vary), to ensure you can't move it very much during the operation (the eye does still move slightly, but the laser can track the movement and compensates or cuts off - it does the same if you twitch your head). They then use a laser to cut a very tiny flap in the front part of the eye, and the device causes it to flip open. This is the moment you go "blind". The reason is because once that flap has been moved, the normal refraction of light onto your retina no longer occurs. They used to use a very small blade, but from my understanding the laser is cleaner, has basically zero risk for contamination/infection, and creates a more precise cut. At this point, they shoot the laser onto your eye. This is probably the most frightening moment, because while you don't see or feel anything (even with the eye not currently being operated on), you can smell what is happening. However, it really does not last very long, 60 seconds in my case, and the doctor counted down the time for me (your mileage may vary on this). Once he was done, he put the flap back, removed everything, put on a contact lens used as a "band-aid" on the eye and told me to go home and take a nap. I had a follow-up in the afternoon, and I had something like 20/40 or 20/50 vision. The contact lens came off, and I could do things that day. By the next morning, I was back to normal. I ended up with 20/30 vision at the end.

Personally, I never was given anything to help me relax. The closest thing was a small animal-shaped pillow to keep my hands busy and out of the doctor's way. If a person is really nervous, they may give them a Valium, but that is a case-by-case/doctor-by-doctor thing, not standard procedure. Frankly, it was one of the easiest doctor visits I have ever had. At most, it is about fifteen minutes of being slightly uncomfortable, pretty much all of it a mental thing, and then your done.

Comment: Re:Hero worship (Score 1) 499

by jammer170 (#45413677) Attached to: How 3 Young Coders Built a Better Portal To HealthCare.gov

Clearly you don't understand the function of the Supreme Court. They do not "interpret" the Constitution, they judge new laws against the restrictions put in place by the Constitution (and that function is outlined in the Constitution). The Constitution can be changed, by the amendment process, not the Supreme Court.

Second, you clearly don't understand the definition of worship either. How is using clarifying statements from the author about a passage the author wrote worship? If you don't agree with the restrictions put in place 200 years ago, then modify them using the process put in place 200 years ago to specifically address that problem. Your issue is you can't get enough support for your position, and so you try to do an end-run around the Constitution, by attacking the basis for the entire country and those that wrote it.

Comment: Re:Government Involvement (Score 1) 499

by jammer170 (#45409019) Attached to: How 3 Young Coders Built a Better Portal To HealthCare.gov

Yes, I have read that before. The main problem with that is James Madison, who wrote the Constitution, explicitly spoke prior to that directly contradicting it. Alexander Hamilton was a noted strong government advocate, and this was part of his attempt to "reinterpret" what was already made clear, much like the Supreme Court, and Republicans, and Democrats, do today. We have very clear indications as to the use of this phrase. Until someone can explain why the author's own explanation is not good enough, I don't see why anyone should care about other people's opinions on the matter.

Comment: Re:Government Involvement (Score 1) 499

by jammer170 (#45402455) Attached to: How 3 Young Coders Built a Better Portal To HealthCare.gov

First, that isn't an "interpretation", that is exactly what is intended, with detail provided by the individual who wrote the document. Second, Madison knew there might be points where the document no longer applied to current society, so he provided a way to change it. It is called the amendment process. If you think the general welfare clause should be expanded, that is how you do it. Third, you need to educate yourself on what the Supreme Court's actual job is. That don't get to decide how to interpret the law - they judge new laws against the Constitution. "Legislating from the bench" is a violation of the separation of powers explicitly put into place by the Constitution.

Finally, let's quote the part of the Wikipedia article you left out:

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

To sum it up, for roughly 150 years the Supreme Court held that the general welfare clause was constrained by the rest of the document, until they decided it was just too inconvenient and reversed the decision. Since then, they have been on a continual power grab, just like the other branches of government. None of that changes the extremely clear intent of the phrase, and any justification under the claim of "general welfare" is pure bullshit. If you want the federal government to do that, then do it the right way, and pass an amendment. But as far as I am concerned, you are just another petty tyrannical individual propping up bigger tyrannical individuals who happen to agree with your kind of tyranny, because you know you can't get the required support to pass an amendment.

Comment: Re:Government Involvement (Score 3, Informative) 499

by jammer170 (#45400899) Attached to: How 3 Young Coders Built a Better Portal To HealthCare.gov

No, it does not. I'm sick and tired of seeing that lie perpetuated over and over by people looking to pass unconstitutional law. The general welfare clause is entirely dependent on the other enumerated powers in the Constitution, none of which gives Congress the power over health care. Madison himself wrote extensively on exactly how that phrase was suppose to be interpreted, and he should know best, given that he wrote the fucking Constitution of the United States. Please educate yourself on the issue.

Comment: Re:Rose-tinted view indeed (Score 1) 634

by jammer170 (#45229163) Attached to: British NHS May Soon No Longer Offer Free Care

I find it funny how you claim a government telling a woman to go home and die is a "somewhat" bad example. What would be a horrendous example of socialistic healthcare, shooting her when she walked in?

As far as "better" health care, using what measure? Do you have any actual objective statistics/sources to back up that claim?

The fact is, what you read is, quite simply, untrue. Any licensed physician in America is required to treat a person in an emergency (you can verify this on the American Medical Association's website). As far as the quality of our care, do you have any explanation why people from other countries so frequently travel to the US to get care? Yes, it costs more, but we get vastly better care than any of the socialistic countries. Our hospitals run 24/7, unlike, say, Japan that closes their hospitals at 5PM. The "America" you talk about does not exist, and I feel sorry for you if that is the propaganda you've been given about this country.

Comment: Re:Rose-tinted view indeed (Score 1) 634

by jammer170 (#45168143) Attached to: British NHS May Soon No Longer Offer Free Care

Bullshit. If that were the case, you'd be rattling off how this single payer country doesn't cover cancer treatments, and that one doesn't cover organ transplants. You don't because you can't.

Actually, you are full of bullshit. I can name you a country right now. My girlfriend moved here from Russia. Her mother needed dialysis. She went to the public clinic, who told her they had no available machines to treat her, so she should go home. That's right, they sent her home to die, in front of her three children, only one of which would (barely) legally qualify as an adult at the time. That's what the Russian public health care system gives you. You want facts, there's a fact.

Comment: Re:The Blame Game (Score 1) 1532

by jammer170 (#45004669) Attached to: U.S. Government: Sorry, We're Closed

Gee, people who read a liberal new site hold conservatives responsible for the current situation? Shocking! You know what is equally shocking? Fox News shows the opposite! Equally shocking!

Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to sit over here and watch both of the three ring circuses point fingers for a while more...

Comment: I'm confused... (Score 1) 216

by jammer170 (#44688315) Attached to: Gore's Staff Says He Was Misquoted On Hexametric Hurricanes

I must be missing something here. The Washington Post originally claimed Al Gore said, "The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now they’re adding a 6." A correction was issues that claims he actually said, "The scientists are now adding category six to the hurricane....some are proposing we add category 6 to the hurricane scale that used to be 1-5." OK, but so what? Don't both statements essentially mean the same thing, even if the quote wasn't correct? Even worse, aren't both still false, as Chris Vaccaro, director of the National Weather Service’s office of public affairs, said in response, "No, we’re not pursuing any such change. I’m also not sure who VP Gore means by 'they.'"? So regardless of whether Al Gore was misquote, the result is the same - a false claim of adding a category six to the hurricane chart.

Comment: Re:Then maybe it's time for some new laws... (Score 1) 259

by jammer170 (#44318997) Attached to: DOJ: We Don't Need a Warrant To Track You

Except that isn't what 'living, breathing document' means. You can check the Wikipedia article 'living constitution' for full details, but basically a 'living constitution' can be summed up as rules that are interpreted according to the current societal values. Under the rules of a 'living constitution', things like the thirteenth and nineteenth amendments are meaningless because 'liberty' and 'man' would be simply redefined to include those individuals previously excluded. In fact, the existence of procedures to amend the Constitution of the United States is exactly why the idea of it being a 'living constitution' is flawed. When the people realize something isn't right, the people should pass amendments to cover those scenarios. Of course, this requires a population that has a much better understanding of our government, such as the fact that an amendment process exists, and the federal government can only do things explicitly listed in the Constitution, and so on.

Comment: Re:So how aren't they spying on US citizens? (Score 1) 323

Whether I like it or not, I do expect foreign governments are (at least attempting) to watch any American citizen they have an interest in. That's the way spying and espionage works, and has worked for every country that is or has been in existence. If you honestly believe the UK does not have it's own intelligence services doing the exact same thing, then you are in for a very rude shock in the future. Hell, didn't you guys come up with James Bond, who is based in part on the very real life of Ian Fleming?

While prior to this point lack of resources have prevented foreign governments from collecting data on everyone, that is simply no longer the case. I suspect random bits of my internet history is sitting in many foreign governments' systems (and many foreign citizens' internet histories are sitting in American systems). However, there is a key differences between my government having my data and some foreign government having my data. The Chinese, Russian, UK, Australian, and other governments have very little control over me, and I don't have much control over them. So while I'm not really happy about it, I'm not really all that concerned about it either.

However, my government does have some control over me, and I it. That makes us, to some degree, adversaries. As the recent revelations about the IRS illegally targeting political groups contrary to the current government, there is reason for politicians to find information about me and use it to try to disenfranchise me, either directly by finding some act I have performed that can be construed as illegal, or else behind the scenes through blackmail, manipulation, or frustration. Further, the American constitution explicitly prevents collection of information about American citizens anywhere and anyone in America regardless of citizenship status, except in very specific circumstances (usually requiring a warrant) - something other countries don't necessarily have. So there are many reasons why I am okay with your privacy being violated by my government, and mine not. In a perfect world, I'd prefer no one's privacy being violated, but I don't live in a perfect world.

Of course, it is really hypocritical for a citizen of the UK complaining about privacy violations by a foreign government, given how your government has been increasing surveillance of their own citizens with very little outcry.

We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.

Working...