The way politicians work is via quid pro quos. A large donor gives them (specifically a shell organization) money or other enticements, and they provide favorable legislation for the donor. I don't think there were entities large enough to rival countries back in the days of the Constituion, so this threat to the republic is a new one. There was that Oxfam study earlier this year which stated 62 people own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world. WalMart has more revenue than Norway's GDP, for example.

So, I don't think the Founders saw this coming. Might need a carefully crafted amendment to deal with this issue.

This is like the "American Trial Lawyers Association" (ATLA) renaming itself to the "American Association For Justice". And it wasn't really trial lawyers to begin with, but specifically plaintiff lawyers.

This is just not true. Low concentrations of CO2 can cause distress. High concentrations are fast and painless.

There have been lake and volcanic outgassing events which release massive amounts of CO2 and it kills people and animals where they stand, in seconds.

See the Lake Nyos incident to see how CO2 kills.

And here's the final report on the incident from the USGS (PDF): "In this incident, asphyxia resulted from the displacement of normal atmosphere (approximately 21 percent oxygen) by a cloud of carbon dioxide gas. Under such circumstances, victims will literally "drop in their tracks" after taking a few breaths and experience no feeling of suffocation. The actual mechanism of death is believed to be a paralysis of the respiratory centers in the brain by very high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lethal levels of carbon dioxide are in the range of 8 to 10 percent (Sittig, 1985)." - pp. 18-19

Also: "Additionally, many victims were found in their beds still covered by bed clothing. Victims found outside appeared to have collapsed suddenly without substantial movement. Animals were described as "dead in their tracks" in herds rather than dispersed." - page 17

An accepted humane way to kill lab animals is with high concentrations of CO2. The key is "high concentrations."

This concept, of dry ice generating carbon dioxide which flows down into holes at high concentrations, is actually brilliant and humane.

I don't really care about more surveillance if it means people's lives will be saved. I've concluded the people who have the most to lose from increased surveillance are drug users, pedophiles and those paranoid of the government. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.

Yeah, I get the typical standard response of wrapping oneself in the 13-starred early American flag wearing a 3 pointed hat, and shouting, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety!" I'm not giving up any freedom. I'm still covered by the Constitution.

If there is a compelling national security interest to tap my phone or monitor my communications - I won't like it (obviously) but I'm okay with it. But there isn't so I feel comfortable communicating embarrassing information and even communicating thoughtcrime from time to time. But if someone did get on the government's national security radar, I'd want the government to be able to surveil them in the hope that it might save lives. And in saying I'm okay with it for another means I must accept that risk/inconvenience for myself. Because, like I said, I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it saves someone else's life.

Having said all that, I do respect Edward Snowden for his courage and for bringing this out into the light, and not letting the program run away. I wouldn't want to see NSA employees using the infrastructure to gather LOVEINT, i.e. stalk ex-girlfriends, or politicians using the infrastructure to gather opposition research and the like. On the other hand I personally wouldn't hire Snowden because I get the impression if he saw something that went against his grain, he'd divulge company secrets in a heartbeat.

Yeah, it's the Russians, not the post Iraq war and post financial crisis revelations that have sown mistrust in institutions.

Uh huh.

About those cell phones the poor have - they're "Obama-phones" - and I suppose we should be thankful because it does increase the market for our wares. I've seen this effect in person:

1) Snopes link

2) US News and World Report link

I have an acquaintance - an engineer with an engineering degree - who married a woman from a poor background. His big complaint? While he was working and saving, she'd (marginally employed) spend money continuously on idiotic trinkets. He tried to teach her the importance of saving and fiscal prudence but it was lost on her. They eventually divorced.

Agreed. However, posting PII/PHI of private citizens should be illegal. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. Because the social and personal cost is greater than any conceivable benefit.

I know a couple of ground level employees whose information was in that hack. Medical information, social security numbers. To what end?

took it to school at the suggestion of his father, hoping to start a racial incident.

There's no actual evidence for the conspiracy theories. The police didn't charge him for a hoax bomb and they actually investigated it.

Everything else is just pure speculation.

I was always puzzled about the outrageous rates at which companies billed out software engineers. But when I got into consulting, I found out the hard way how important lawyers are. And then the larger the company gets, the more specialized people are needed. Contracting officers, accountants, site security, hardware, health insurance, unemployment insurance, taxes. All of those costs have to be covered by the revenue from products, services and billed-to-the-client staff. That made the hourly rates suddenly seem much less dazzling, and let me understand why I got such a small slice of them.

You have to get senior database and programming and UI architects in some of these decisions to reintroduce some sanity and control over the complexity of the solutions.

And when I say "senior", I mean SENIOR. Like 15 to 20 years of experience working with databases with lots of tables and millions of rows. Someone who's actually been around the block and understands how things work and don't work. At a minimum, that's the database person necessary. Also having true senior programmers and UI types would be very useful it seems to me.

If you want to get a visceral appreciation for the complexity of medical billing today, check out the Medicare Claims Processing Manual.

It almost seems like you can't merely get an administrative assistant, but you need someone with an A.A. in medical billing.

The thing that really left me aghast was the move from ICD 9 to ICD 10 (diagnosis codes and descriptions). Those #$&!!?! policy geniuses completely abandoned the ICD 9 codes and instituted all new ICD 10 codes. There was a big infrastructure around ICD 9. There is plenty of overlap in the codes, so it's a recipe for mass confusion. It's stunning that there was not even any attempt to have even a scintilla of backward compatibility.

It is almost like there are no senior database or programming architects involved in any of these decisions regarding medical IT. From what I've seen, it seems to me that it's purely non-technical policy staff driving this stuff. You have to get senior database and programming and UI architects in some of these decisions to reintroduce some sanity and control over the complexity of the solutions.

So you've got this encrypted system that's kind of like a Usenet for transactions. I make a change locally, eventually it propagates across the world. The databases are on everyone's computers versus on several hundred servers like Usenet.

The "distributed ledger" is supposed to be the Next Big Thing. And I don't mean that with any sarcasm or negativity. But how well will it scale really, if the ledgers/databases are on people's computers instead of a network of several powerful servers connected by a fast backbone?

I'm a total tyro when it comes to the distributed ledger. I've never used Bitcoin. But it - the distributed ledger - seems hackable, with no recourse if you lose your stash. And its scalability seems limited.

In the past, Microsoft used to piss off other businesses by crushing them, ruthlessly.

Now, they are gratuitously fucking with their non-captive PAID UP customer base. That's just bizarre. Incomprehensible. Smells like poor management.

If you think your customer is captive, sure, you can squeeze them, if they have limited other choices, as the typical person does with an operating system. But with non-captive customers? Smells like poor management. It seems like a management philosophy that permeates the Windows and Office divisions is spreading to the non-captive-customer divisions.