Posts by Michael 34

Can you ethically suggest a woman pursue a career in tech?

Re: After reading the article ...

"companies hiring not-really-stellar employees for any unsound reasons will take a financial hit for doing it."

Unless your company is a government contractor (or *is* the government).

Hard time

"they give her a hard time."

Did you mean difficult and obnoxious, or merely tumescent? :-)

Re: Small correction

"Our smartphone-centered culture is proof of that."

There is no OUR. I do not have a smartphone; just a reliable flip-phone that can go four days on a charge.

Arizona bill makes it illegal to 'annoy or offend' online

Re: Misleading article is misleading

Exactly right; but a problem exists with your theory in that you presume upon the intellect of the person that you are insulting to comprehend that he or she has indeed been insulted.

Re: What about...

I suspect at least a billion people "believe in America". Maybe several billion but I may be exaggerating its influence.

Ice age end was accelerated by CO₂

Consider the Source

As to the article itself, presumably others besides someone at Oregon will validate the claim. Deciding which came first, the chicken or the egg, is perhaps easier than which came first, the ice or the CO2? (Eggs come first. The very first chicken will be a mutation inside an egg whose parents were almost-chickens but not quite there).

In the instant case; it is well established that a circularity exists -- ice depends on CO2 which depends on ice, round and round we go. As others have pointed out, positive feedbacks exist, but more on that topic would suggest exploring bistable systems -- a "flip flop" in computer terms, versus an oscillation. In the case of an oscillation, once the rate of rise starts to decline the system starts to head the other way. This article suggests that ice ages are indeed a bistable system and some external input is required to "toggle" the state.

As to the meta-discussion of "denier", Kari Norgaard has quite a lot to say about it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2867911/posts?page=7

Perhaps humans CAN modify climate; that doesn't mean we SHOULD. But if in fact humans cannot modify climate, how many trillions of dollars shall we waste on the experiment, and what exactly was the real intention all along for doing so?

Spooks' secret TEMPEST-busting tech reinvented by US student

Nyquist Theorem

Use the Nyquist Theorem -- if the claimed data rate is 12 megabits/sec, you are going to need a carrier of at least twice that -- 24 megahertz ultrasonic. Such a thing probably won't go a millimeter in air or water but steel is extremely "elastic" and energy conserving.

Railroad

As soon as I saw that physical attachment was required, I (as did many of you) immediately realized sound waves.

An ancient trick is to listen to steel rails for an approaching locomotive. It doesn't work as well as the movies suggest because rails sometimes have air gaps (expansion gaps) every so often, but within a segment it works well enough.

It works because steel is extremely elastic and conserves energy, also, the velocity of sound in steel is very high -- 6,000 meters per second (about 340 meters/sec in air).

Three phase 400 Hz

The mog-gens in aircraft are used to produce 3-phase 400 Hz power for avionics. That's the relentless whine one heard in cold war surveillance aircraft. We also used them in the ground support facilities for the same purpose -- 60 Hz single phase in, 400 Hz 3 phase out. Big, heavy, and not particularly. efficient

Mo-gens are also used as a type of UPS -- a big heavy flywheel keeps the generator part spinning while a diesel generator starts up.

Republican reps push for mandatory gun ownership

Reasonable assumption

"Well, how about somebody has a look at if there's a correlation between overcrowding and a desire to kill your neighbour?"

Probably. The only clear example I know is Iceland, where violent crime exists pretty much solely in the one and only area of high housing density, a high-rise apartment project east of Reyjkavik.

But even there it isn't strictly *density* but Malthusian scarcity of resource. WHY do people live in high-density circumstances? There you will find your answer to peace in Washington DC and peace in Africa.

More people exist than resources exist to feed them. That is the whole answer in a nutshell. The murder capital of America happens also to be the welfare capital of America (so far as I know) -- Southeast Washington DC.

DC gets a bad rap; it is the southeastern quadrant that is really bad. This is where many years ago several tens of thousands of black war veterans came and camped, denied benefits that had been promised to them and they promised to stay until they got the benefits promised. Well, they're still there, and probably still waiting for those benefits.

Employment is almost non-existent in the entire quadrant. It is surrounded by the "beltway" which forms a convenient barrier. Google "crime in Prince Georges County" which is immediately adjacent and partly inside the same quadrant.

The people aren't "bad" there, most of them anyway, but they have no place to go. A single mother on welfare is in a lucrative economic position; she'd have to land a $3,000 per month job just to match the welfare benefits and that was 15 years ago.

So the economic input is welfare money -- and that means "parasites" exist. Gangs. Most of the violence is gang versus gang, doing what Thomas Malthus predicts for all nations some day.

Good analogy for the 1800's

"You see someone shooting someone else so you shoot that guy. Someone else sees you shoot him and figures you must be the bad guy and shoots you."

I think you overstate the desire of everyone to actually carry a gun all the time. Having one at home to defend against rapists, burglars or other nefarious intruders is fairly common, actually having a gun all the time is NOT common.

Not a grenade

"A grenade, because it is the American way."

Not really. The American Way is probably a Clint Eastwood .44 Magnum, or a John Wayne six-shooter, or a Sharps rifle.

You identify your enemy and engage your enemy and only your enemy. If you have no enemies, you can go shoot dinner with the same weapon.

I suppose you could grenade a lake and scoop up dead fish.

"So 30-40 years from now there's going to be a lot more impoverishment; and a growing clamour for more Socialist policies."

Yes indeed, and at some point it is like a losing hand in Monopoly -- doom. Not enough people working for those that are not. At that point it will snowball very rapidly to total collapse.

At which point the survivors will be the ones with guns.

Think 1800's

"I can't imagine bar fights, drunken nights etc when everyone was locked and loaded.."

People tended to be more polite, actually.

Do you have any idea what is meant by "locked and loaded"? How can you POSSIBLY load your gun, if you have just locked it?

I know, but I see this phrase often from people that couldn't tell a gun from a cigarette lighter.

It comes from the M1 Garand rifle. You load the magazine from the TOP of the receiver, down past the bolt. So, you lock the bolt back, push the magazine down, and when the magazine hits bottom it unlocks the bolt automatically and will take your thumbnail off if you are not quick enough with your hand. It dang near took a piece of my thumb.

Why a reservation?

"Oh and can I put a reservation on a 0.5 caliber Desert Eagle as well?"

Why do you need a reservation?

Exactly right.

"Kill Baby KIll, oh that's not what a gun does, that's what a humanoid do!"

I've had a military career, and never once has a gun killed all by itself. I have held them in my hands; and still never once has any that I have held killed a person. I did kill a bird once; I am an excellent marksman, and I sort of regret killing the bird because I did not need to.

Legally use government hospitals

"Each of the three US States in which I've lived already required me to buy car insurance to legally drive,"

So, choose not to drive and see if you still are required to have "insurance".

I expect the government will require you to pay for government hospital care.

But that is not on the table.

Yes

"Because the U.S. health care system is so great for people WITHOUT any health insurance."

It is that, exactly.

Once was exactly the case

"Ironically, you could plausibly find federal power to require gun ownership in the power to organize the Militia,"

This was actually law and might still be. Militia of the United States is all males 18-45 and at one time, and maybe still, were required to present themselves on demand already possessing military style rifles.

That happens a lot after international travel

"For the first time in years I am proud to be an American."

I always was, but after some international travel I appreciated more why it was so.

Try to export that to a much larger, more diverse nation

"In Australia we have a public, universal, end-to-end health care system. It works very well."

It works in Iceland, too; or at least it did until the government ran out of money.

It does not work in the former Soviet Union, the inventor of socialised medicine. it will fail anywhere you have a small number of producers and a large number of consumers.

You Misrepresent the Story

Enacting a TAX is constitutional, using that tax to operate hospitals is also constitutional. That is what your cite speaks of. It is NOT speaking of an illegal scheme to force sailors to pay Aetna Insurance (for instance) directly. Such a thing is NOT Constitutional, although its end effect may not be particularly different.

I suggest also the 14th Amendment prevents unequal treatment -- citizens of the United States would be paying "tribute" to Aetna Insurance (for instance), which might not necessarily even be a United States Corporation, and in return, Aetna then becomes unequal -- superior to -- the citizens from whom it collects this tribute.

"First, it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up."

Say What?

"Or does the not-even-slightly subtle distinction between universal healthcare and obligatory ownership of an item really stretch your braincells?"

I don't even understand your question.

There appears to be no discussion in the United States about universal healthcare. The debate is about mandatory purchase of a piece of paper from a corporation. It might, or might not, turn into healthcare for any particular person for any moment in time depending upon need and availability.

Bad Analogy

"Yet as I mentioned in point 2, the former has already happened, and the latter has not happened as a result."

Since the former has NOT happened, the factuality or lack thereof of the latter remains to be seen.

What you and ten million other dimwits are saying is the former -- automobile insurance -- fails as an example. NOBODY is compelled to buy automobile insurance -- it is a requirement only for people that wish to use government-provided highways and exists in direct response to the danger that you pose to those other people also using the highway.

A proper parallel would be IF you wish to use government health care, THEN you must pay. That is reasonable and is already the case. Payroll taxes already deduct rather substantially for this purpose.

Second, not every state requires "insurance". Many western states allow to post a bond of financial responsibility. Rich people, for instance, don't need "insurance" as they can easily pay outright the same amount that insurance would pay, typically $100,000.

Americans already know these facts but continue with the bad analogy anyway for less-obvious socialist purposes.

this would be "constitutional"

"The alternative would be a tax increase and a massive reduction in health insurance."

Such a thing would be Constitutional in the United States.

Are you really this... I cannot think of a word for it

"What the difference between Car and Health insurance?"

One insures damage either TO your car or caused BY your car. The other pays all or part of the cost of medical treatment to you.

My mother does not have Car insurance. She also pays no registration fee! She is also at no risk of a fine, penalty or jail.

How is such a thing possible? Were you lying? No -- you just aren't telling enough of the truth to make it "truth".

My mother does not drive. At all. Hasn't done so in probably 40 years.

Automobile insurance exists to protect OTHERS from your own foolish driving behavior.

You don't even need that in most western states; you can post a "bond of financial responsibility" with the state.

Finding a doctor RIGHT NOW is no easy task. Just wait until 30 million more people are suddenly chasing the same doctors. You probably think that "health insurance" is somehow the equivalent of "health care".

Data is abundant

"It would be interesting to see data on the different states and if there is a link between gun ownership and deaths by guns (or bullets, not rounds, anyway)."

I think you might be a provocateur of some sort -- this kind of data is easily available.

In states where gun ownership is very high (Utah, Alaska), deaths by gun is very low, most kinds of violent crime are very low. Instead there is more petty crime. Certain kinds of crime are almost non-existent such as daylight burglaries.

Conversely, states where gun ownership is either low or illegal, such as Illinois or Washington DC, have very high gun-related crime and correspondingly high daylight burglaries.

Establishing a LINK is not so easy. Google "Gary Kleck" for research on the topic going back several decades.

In other words, do people buy guns BECAUSE of crime in their area, or do guns ENABLE crime? It is not very easy to say because both situations look the same in "statistics". It is very likely circular in a feedback loop.

What is more clear is that the "culture" of Utah and Alaska is less violent and criminally minded, and more uses exist for guns (hunting, varmint control, bears). Make no mistake, Utah and Alaska DO have the occasional serial killer -- but with a much larger population of citizens able to defend themselves it is less of an actual problem.

The Other Side of the Coin

"I'm sure that if there was conclusive data that showed that the more guns there were the higher the gun-related death rate, people would be giving up their guns in no time...."

Not necessarily. The flip side of the coin is the "utility" of guns -- how often they achieve their stated purposes (defense, hunting) compared to illegal purposes. The same is true of automobiles.

Automobiles kill from 33,000 to 45,000 people every year in the United States. Should they be banned? Obviously, the more automobiles are owned, the more people are killed.

But the *utility* of automobiles is compelling.

Gary Kleck, as well as government agencies, have studied the flip side of the coin -- and while numbers vary somewhat, it is clear that guns DEFEND from crime as often as a million times per year. These situations don't usually get reported since, after all, the crime was averted.

NOT

"P.S. All 50 states require basic insurance on cars. Most also have a car tax every year as well."

Incorrect. All states require some form of financial responsibility as a prerequisite to operating a motor vehicle on government roads.

TWO important distinctions here: you are operating on government roads -- if you don't, then you do not need financial responsibility -- if you do, you need financial responsibility which in some western states can be met with a bond of financial responsibility rather than "insurance".

That's "why"

"How come (should be: why are) police, fire services, welfare (the amount you have), border services (are) all constitutional?"

The answer is these are neither commanded nor prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Cash money welfare is not and probably cannot be a federal program, there is no constitutional provision for it. The British don't really have a system of autonomous states -- Wales, Scotland and so forth are vaguely similar in that regard. But crime and welfare are state issues; each state has its own criminal code.

The US Federal Government has a long list of things it is not supposed to do and a short list of things it is permitted to do. Everything else is left to the states or to the people (10th Amendment and the foundation of the modern American "Tea Parties").

Anything not prohibited is therefore also not unconstitutional.

Involuntary servitude is prohibited. Mandatory purchase of life insurance is effectively involuntary servitude of the amount of labor it takes for you to earn the money to purchase the mandatory life insurance. in the past such schemes were known by "poll tax" and is dangerously close to mandatory union dues to join a mandatory union to obtain employment in a "closed shop" state. This is the Dark Side of socialism -- socialism and liberty CANNOT co-exist except in the extremely rare instance of people actually choosing a cooperative lifestyle (Iceland is or was a pretty good example 20 years ago).

"There's probably hundreds of nationalised services around, that everyone is just used to."

Yes indeed, but all are fairly recent developments. As recently as 1925, the town where I am now living had THREE distinct electrical distribution companies -- each with its own power distribution wires and poles.

Curiously enough, a British-style National Health System would be constitutional. Not particularly wise, but at least Constitutional and the British continue to provide excellent examples of its good and bad (allowing a man to die of thirst in a HOSPITAL!) sides.

To use a historical example, the United States is believed to have come into existence more or less as a consequence of the Stamp Act by which the King of England imposed a tax on tea. Today that seems pretty ordinary but it ruffled some serious feathers.

It appears that the King should have taken a page from the U.S. Democratic party and required American colonists to BUY TEA, and of course, pay the tax. Alternatively, you could pay the penalty -- the price of the tea, and not actually take possession of the tea. A poll tax in other words. You will pay $5,000 per year because you exist.

No Need to Do It Again

"The people who drafted the constitution already created mandated healthcare "

Then obviously there is no need to do it again.