Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The WHO (Score 1) 374

by ultranova (#47970873) Attached to: Bioethicist At National Institutes of Health: "Why I Hope To Die At 75"

Do you want high-risk open-heart surgery, with a fifteen-per-cent risk of dying during the operation, or would you rather continue as you are, with a fifty-per-cent chance you will be dead in two years?

Open-heart surgery, please. You can actually feel your heartbeat, and thinking there's a problem means every irregularity, real or imagined, is going to give you a start. This gets especially fun when you're trying to sleep because that, after all, involves heartbeat slowing down.

Comment: Not MAD. (Score 2) 76

by DerekLyons (#47970821) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

*Sigh* A former cold warrior you may be, but all you do is give proof to what I've long said - a worm's eye view doesn't make you an expert. Or even knowledgeable. (And yeah, the view of a launch control officer is pretty low level). Having been an SSBN weapons tech (and FTB to be precise), I'm quite aware of just how little can be seen from the operating level.

America's nuclear strategy isn't MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), and hasn't been for a couple of decades now. The strategy we're working towards now is Minimal Deterrence - the smallest number of weapons needed for deterrence.

Comment: Re: Science vs Faith (Score 1) 620

by DigiShaman (#47970773) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Deeper. Where did that quantum event come from? At some point, everything came from zero (nothing). Unless however, the universe or multiverse is truly infinite.

I'm not saying you're wrong about there being a quantum event that started the Big Bang. However, it too has a point of origin of creation from nothing; does it not?

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 381

Nah. You just talked about subsidies. You said: "They're not going to help here, because our situation is exactly what the law calls for. If you're making more than $60k, you don't GET subsidies, you have to GIVE subsidies to other people (like you)."

Exactly. If you don't qualify for subsidies, then there IS NO CHEAPER MAGIC SOLUTION than those that the regulated insurance companies in the state advertise. They don't have the option of having secret cheaper-than-the-exchange plans. So if you call a hotline and complain that your new insurance plan is too expensive, their ONLY OPTION is to try to find a way to qualify you for a plan that somebody else is forced to help you buy. Otherwise, the price is what the price is.

Especially the one that pointed out that it was those very same insurers that you implicitly praise that raised their rates to where they are now.

For which they had no choice. They are required by law to suddenly provide a range of coverage that was not previously built into their pricing. If you were suddenly told that you had to provide a bunch of new services or else, would you just eat the loss, or raise your prices in order to maintain your business? Insurance companies work on smaller margins than companies in many, many other industries. Remove that margin, and they are out of business. Now, that may be what the ACA backers secretly want, but in the meantime, you raise your prices to deal with the fact that your government has just substantially raised your costs.

They *knew* that they had just a few years before those rates became government controlled

They've always been government controlled. Every state in the union has an insurance regulating body to which those companies must turn for approval in order to change rates. And each of those scenarios plays out in something of a vacuum, because laws prevent insurance companies from providing services across state lines. The government has been entirely in control of this stuff for decades (as if you didn't know that!).

In civilized parts of the world, that would be considered collusion and price fixing.

No, it's known as state regulation. The companies who have a very innovative way to deliver the same (government approved) class of services with less overhead MAY be able to offer a lower price if they can survive doing so. But there's generally very, very little latitude in the cost/price recipe before the insurer is on intolerably thin ice.

Comment: Re:And who is to say... (Score 1) 67

by DigiShaman (#47970715) Attached to: Service Promises To Leak Your Documents If the Government Murders You

Not even. Just use a deadman switch. You just have a website that you log into once a day/week/month what-have you. I for any reason you fail to do so, the information is released publicly on the front page. If it's of any interest, the community will spread it via P2P and other methods; like wild fire.

Comment: Re:Good. IndieGoGo should do it too (Score 1) 182

by Firethorn (#47969877) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Some sort of colored LCD providing a sort of e-inkish surface was indeed one of the things we considered - heck, we even considered moving strips of material to expose the proper color at the proper spot. Thing is, the more systems you stuff in there, the less space for solar panels and the more it costs.

Like my first post - I wish them the best of luck, but we don't see the potential being that high. One of the other problems of the solar roads site was that they massively overstated the maintenance requirements for non-heavily traveled roads.

Comment: Re:What if they break the NDA? (Score 1) 77

by TheCarp (#47969305) Attached to: Before Using StingRays, Police Must Sign NDA With FBI

All things being equal that sounds right to me, however, I don't think all things are equal here.

Now IANNAL but as I understand it an agreement to break the law cannot be a legal contract. Agreeing to not disclose something which the police have no right to actually refuse to disclose is an agreement to break the law; is it not?

Also, as I understand it, an agreement to break the law, is itself a criminal act known as conspiracy.

If the local police and FBI are entering into an agreement which would require them to break the law to conform to, and they then conform to the agreement, how is that not a criminal conspiracy?

Seriously, I don't doubt they have some technical legal out but, if they do, its a technical loophole and a serious weakness in the law as it stands, because all I see here is conspiracy to obstruct justice by withholding evidence.

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors