Today in Alabama news, I noted one of these oddball medical stories. Specialist from Morgan County, just south of Huntsville.....noted the first ever case in north Alabama of leprosy. Yep....leprosy.
They won't say much about the guy except he's not a local guy. One might assume he's from another country....but they were careful not to suggest that.
A big deal? Well....if you had it and just avoided doctors throughout the stages....yeah, you'd be pretty bad off and would eventually watch your body 'crap-out'.
Naturally, Bible-thumpers would pick up on this and start talking of various chapters where leprosy was mentioned and it's a hands-on thing from God.
What is generally said is that around 6,000 cases a year usually turn up in the US. Kinda shocking numbers and I have my doubts about this.
Treatment? Generally, as long as you get to it in the early stages....there's treatment for it.
The thing here though...is that folks around Alabama have a list of about 1,000 things they worry about: snakes, food-poisoning, meth-heads, tornadoes, rabid dogs, mad bulls chasing you in the field, blow-outs on the interstate, vengeful red-haired ex-girlfriends, chainsaw accidents, drunk relatives with guns, tractors flipping over, bass boat sinking in the river, ministers hooking up with your wife, staying overnight in Chattanooga, Bible prophecy, snowfall of more than six inches, new neighbors moving next door who lived in California for their entire lives, gambling casinos, Alabama getting a five-year suspension from the NCAA football business, lightning striking you on the patio while a thunderstorm rolls through, Aliens kidnapping you, and your minister finding out about your big refrigerator in the garage for bulk beer purchases.
And now? Another extra worry? Leprosy?
Yeah, it's something we just didn't have to worry about.
Thursday, 19 March 2015
Friday, 13 March 2015
Net Neutrality Discussion
The FCC "net neutrality" document got released this week. I sat down and read through 75-odd pages of the 400-page document. FCC 15-24 is the document....it's free to browse and read off their server. I'll make these five observations.
First, when people expected it to sound like 'rules'.....they were expecting too much. I've written rules for the government (particularly DoD), and it just isn't that type of document. I'm very familiar with white papers, point papers, situation awareness papers, etc. This document doesn't read like them either. Oddly, it reads like a thesis paper, written by some masters degree program. It works itself to be type of argument for convincing the reader of some bluff (a word that I would use to describe intentions to convince someone of something but without any heavy weight).
Second, citation-wise....it's an amazing document. Whoever wrote it.....has heavyweight experience at writing a thesis-like document. Everything is absolutely cited. In fact, I'd say that half the pages in the 400-odd page document are heavily cited....to the point that a quarter of the page is the cited references. Odd? When you write a rule document....it's rare that you reference anything. I can say this because I've written at least forty regulations in my life.
Third, I kinda noticed one particular organization listed in the references a good bit....a George Soros-sponsored media group. They got mentioned forty-six times. The author? They had a heavy hand to use significant references from the Soros group. An agenda? It would be curious to ask the three who voted for the document if they knew what the author was doing or if they've ever met any member of the George Soros-sponsored group....."Free Press".
Fourth, ID theft? It's one of top five problems with the internet today. In the 400-pages? It's mentioned two times. Yeah....two times total. I did the word check at the conclusion of my reading. Obviously.....the commission didn't really care to go after one of the biggest issues with the internet. What does that say? This is the one thing that they could have said was their top priority and we might have stood behind them for fixing ID theft. Zero effort.
Fifth, who wrote the document? Unknown. No names attached to the beginning or conclusion. I seriously doubt that the five members wrote this. Some editor stood in the middle and constructed the document. Who? We will never know.
My conclusion or bottom line? It's a neat thesis paper. Whoever started this paper.....probably started it as a college project and it simply grew. Someone read it....pushed it along....and eventually it was turned into the FCC net neutrality project. It's value as a monumental regulation? On a scale of one to ten....I'd say it's closer to two than anything else. Rules and regulations from this document? No....just positions....nothing else. For a thesis paper? I'd give it a "A".....written well and well cited. Beyond that.....it doesn't say much except everyone ought to have the same speed. Yeah....400-pages wasted on a position of speed for Americans.
First, when people expected it to sound like 'rules'.....they were expecting too much. I've written rules for the government (particularly DoD), and it just isn't that type of document. I'm very familiar with white papers, point papers, situation awareness papers, etc. This document doesn't read like them either. Oddly, it reads like a thesis paper, written by some masters degree program. It works itself to be type of argument for convincing the reader of some bluff (a word that I would use to describe intentions to convince someone of something but without any heavy weight).
Second, citation-wise....it's an amazing document. Whoever wrote it.....has heavyweight experience at writing a thesis-like document. Everything is absolutely cited. In fact, I'd say that half the pages in the 400-odd page document are heavily cited....to the point that a quarter of the page is the cited references. Odd? When you write a rule document....it's rare that you reference anything. I can say this because I've written at least forty regulations in my life.
Third, I kinda noticed one particular organization listed in the references a good bit....a George Soros-sponsored media group. They got mentioned forty-six times. The author? They had a heavy hand to use significant references from the Soros group. An agenda? It would be curious to ask the three who voted for the document if they knew what the author was doing or if they've ever met any member of the George Soros-sponsored group....."Free Press".
Fourth, ID theft? It's one of top five problems with the internet today. In the 400-pages? It's mentioned two times. Yeah....two times total. I did the word check at the conclusion of my reading. Obviously.....the commission didn't really care to go after one of the biggest issues with the internet. What does that say? This is the one thing that they could have said was their top priority and we might have stood behind them for fixing ID theft. Zero effort.
Fifth, who wrote the document? Unknown. No names attached to the beginning or conclusion. I seriously doubt that the five members wrote this. Some editor stood in the middle and constructed the document. Who? We will never know.
My conclusion or bottom line? It's a neat thesis paper. Whoever started this paper.....probably started it as a college project and it simply grew. Someone read it....pushed it along....and eventually it was turned into the FCC net neutrality project. It's value as a monumental regulation? On a scale of one to ten....I'd say it's closer to two than anything else. Rules and regulations from this document? No....just positions....nothing else. For a thesis paper? I'd give it a "A".....written well and well cited. Beyond that.....it doesn't say much except everyone ought to have the same speed. Yeah....400-pages wasted on a position of speed for Americans.
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
The Nixon Health Care Episode
At the end of the Nixon era....in the middle of Feb of 1974....Nixon decided to take a major step toward a health care option for Americans.....basically converting Medicare into a device for all Americans.
The order given down? Here's the significant part of the Nixon plan:
"The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources; And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work–consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government."
What happened to the Nixon plan? Oddly, the Democrats of the House and Senate picked this up, and put a package together which conformed to the majority of Nixon's ideas. At some point, it got out to unions and older Americans that there would be a cost factor involved and regular Americans would have to cover the price difference between what the lower-class could pay and the rest of America. Newspapers, Time, Newsweak, and the big three networks carried the message to the public, and the Democrats simply could not sell this to the public.
Ford came into office shortly after this, with Nixon's resignation....and the Democrats just said adios to the whole idea.
The no-new-taxes part of the scheme? Oh, he was right about that.....it would be built into your monthly deductions for medicare. So he was right....no extra taxes.....just more onto what you already paid.
When this usually gets brought up.....Republicans of today usually go into fits and deny such a thing ever occurred. The odd thing? Well....Nixon spoke up that NO new taxes would be added to pay for this.....kinda like the plan we have today. Nixon also said that you could keep your doctor (in certain words), if you wanted to, and the doctor would work for you, not the government....which is a President Obama-situation that popped up.
The order given down? Here's the significant part of the Nixon plan:
"The plan is organized around seven principles:
First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;
Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;
Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;
Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.
Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources; And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work–consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government."
What happened to the Nixon plan? Oddly, the Democrats of the House and Senate picked this up, and put a package together which conformed to the majority of Nixon's ideas. At some point, it got out to unions and older Americans that there would be a cost factor involved and regular Americans would have to cover the price difference between what the lower-class could pay and the rest of America. Newspapers, Time, Newsweak, and the big three networks carried the message to the public, and the Democrats simply could not sell this to the public.
Ford came into office shortly after this, with Nixon's resignation....and the Democrats just said adios to the whole idea.
The no-new-taxes part of the scheme? Oh, he was right about that.....it would be built into your monthly deductions for medicare. So he was right....no extra taxes.....just more onto what you already paid.
When this usually gets brought up.....Republicans of today usually go into fits and deny such a thing ever occurred. The odd thing? Well....Nixon spoke up that NO new taxes would be added to pay for this.....kinda like the plan we have today. Nixon also said that you could keep your doctor (in certain words), if you wanted to, and the doctor would work for you, not the government....which is a President Obama-situation that popped up.
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Driver-Less Cars
This week, the Wall Street Journal did an outstanding piece on car insurance. There's a tidal wave coming to car insurance over the next twenty years, and it's going to make the entire industry of car insurance....no matter what country you live in, or what type of insurance you have currently.....radically change.
You see.....driver-less cars are coming. Every single insurance company within the US has a team working on this issue. Frankly, it's disturbing where this is heading in terms of cost and profits (for the industry, not you).
Here's the thing.....the strong belief is that those sensors and onboard computer system....will lessen car accidents....year by year. As more driver-less cars come.....less accidents (at least in theory). What happens in twenty years? You could bundle up a thousand 18-year old kids into one type of policy, who happen to all own a driver-less car, and discover less than three total accidents for the year (snow and ice-related, probably). The rates for an eighteen year old kid? It'll be dirt cheap compared to today's rates.
This worries the insurance industry. They spent years developing the data and know the general accident rate for 40-to-60 year old folks who drive Ford pick-ups.
Of course, there's also a discussion about lawsuits against sensor and computer companies, where accidents do occur and the blame is on them.
This brings me to a curious computer logic situation. Let's say you bought the $30,000 driver-less car. It's mid-March and some ice storm arrives. You crank up the car, and immediately it checks weather reports, and outside status.....then it turns itself off and determines that it is unsafe to proceed. Will you override the computer? Will the computer note your insistence and transmit an unsafe-to-drive email to your minister, your insurance company, and maybe even your spouse?
Will the driver-less car also have bad-maintenance feature where it determines you aren't responding to car issues and maintenance problems....so it sends another email to your insurance company about your lousy habits?
As much as I'd like to say that driver-less cars are appealing to me.....I'm holding reservations about all the wonderful things that will come.
I realize....some guys with an hour's drive to work could settle back into their seat and do class-work to finish up another degree.....or watch the Today Show.....or simply sleep another hour.
But I suspect as much positive as it might bring.....there's some bold negatives about driver-less cars.
You see.....driver-less cars are coming. Every single insurance company within the US has a team working on this issue. Frankly, it's disturbing where this is heading in terms of cost and profits (for the industry, not you).
Here's the thing.....the strong belief is that those sensors and onboard computer system....will lessen car accidents....year by year. As more driver-less cars come.....less accidents (at least in theory). What happens in twenty years? You could bundle up a thousand 18-year old kids into one type of policy, who happen to all own a driver-less car, and discover less than three total accidents for the year (snow and ice-related, probably). The rates for an eighteen year old kid? It'll be dirt cheap compared to today's rates.
This worries the insurance industry. They spent years developing the data and know the general accident rate for 40-to-60 year old folks who drive Ford pick-ups.
Of course, there's also a discussion about lawsuits against sensor and computer companies, where accidents do occur and the blame is on them.
This brings me to a curious computer logic situation. Let's say you bought the $30,000 driver-less car. It's mid-March and some ice storm arrives. You crank up the car, and immediately it checks weather reports, and outside status.....then it turns itself off and determines that it is unsafe to proceed. Will you override the computer? Will the computer note your insistence and transmit an unsafe-to-drive email to your minister, your insurance company, and maybe even your spouse?
Will the driver-less car also have bad-maintenance feature where it determines you aren't responding to car issues and maintenance problems....so it sends another email to your insurance company about your lousy habits?
As much as I'd like to say that driver-less cars are appealing to me.....I'm holding reservations about all the wonderful things that will come.
I realize....some guys with an hour's drive to work could settle back into their seat and do class-work to finish up another degree.....or watch the Today Show.....or simply sleep another hour.
But I suspect as much positive as it might bring.....there's some bold negatives about driver-less cars.
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
The Simplicity of this Iran Nukes, US Treaty, and Netanyahu Speech
Rather than make this all complicated and require Wolf Blitzer an hour to explain things....let's do it in sixty seconds.
First, thirty-one countries have nuke power today in some form. Nine countries have nuke weapons in some form. How quick would it take Brazil, Czech or Finland to flip over to nuke weapons? Probably less than three years. Once you have the technology of nuke power.....it only takes a bit of experimentation or acquired technology from North Korea.....to settle into an accomplished goal of weapons.
Second, what the treat discussion here is really about.....is a brake-job or delaying Iran from nuke weapons for approximately a decade (might even be less than that, if they wanted to just skip the last part of the treaty). So the value of the treaty is for the US is stand and admit there's nothing to hinder or stop this process....we will simply let things develop as they are.
Third, once Iran has nuke weapons.....what exactly do you think their neighbors will think about and consider? Their own nuke weapons? Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey? The Saudis currently have no nuke power generator. It'd take a simple contract with a French power company to get over to step one......build a nuke plant, and then bring in some South African or North Korean engineers to build up the secondary arm of nuke weapons. Ten countries in the Middle East by 2030 with nuke weapons.....if Iran proceeds ahead? It's a safe bet to make and put some money on.
Fourth, Israel and Netanyahu simply want the poker game to keep playing out with economic sanctions and military strategy. We are probably on poker game version forty-two at present and Iran has figured out how to play poker in an effective manner. Iran can't lose.....while they might be on a long-term strategy, they don't care about short-term losses.
Fifth, President Obama and Netanyahu? Basically.....two guys who have each run out of likability and flexibility. Netanyahu is up for election, and some Democratic Party wise-guys have shown up to help against his election chances. Bad strategy if you ask me.....but meddling in politics is now a daily event in US politics. Netanyahu has countered the White House strategy and now in their own backyard....something that they never envision.
The only option left besides signing some marginal treaty with Iran? Basically dig up fifteen Democratic senators who will side with the Republicans and vote prior to the treaty.....saying 'no' support, period. It'll make the President look weak, as well as the Secretary of State.....but we are at some point where there's nothing much to gain.
Bottom line? There's a nuke war to come sooner or later out of this, and it might not involve the Iranians versus the Israelis.....it might be involving the Saudis, and there might be some religious mullah folks who trigger the event. Then what? To have twenty-five nuke missiles fired off within a span of an hour and half of Riyadh and Tehran destroyed? Would it bother us that much? I think the White House is simply saying 'no'.....they don't care anymore....let the nuke scenario play itself out.
That's the simplicity of this discussion.....nukes actually going off and some people wising up over stupidity.
First, thirty-one countries have nuke power today in some form. Nine countries have nuke weapons in some form. How quick would it take Brazil, Czech or Finland to flip over to nuke weapons? Probably less than three years. Once you have the technology of nuke power.....it only takes a bit of experimentation or acquired technology from North Korea.....to settle into an accomplished goal of weapons.
Second, what the treat discussion here is really about.....is a brake-job or delaying Iran from nuke weapons for approximately a decade (might even be less than that, if they wanted to just skip the last part of the treaty). So the value of the treaty is for the US is stand and admit there's nothing to hinder or stop this process....we will simply let things develop as they are.
Third, once Iran has nuke weapons.....what exactly do you think their neighbors will think about and consider? Their own nuke weapons? Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey? The Saudis currently have no nuke power generator. It'd take a simple contract with a French power company to get over to step one......build a nuke plant, and then bring in some South African or North Korean engineers to build up the secondary arm of nuke weapons. Ten countries in the Middle East by 2030 with nuke weapons.....if Iran proceeds ahead? It's a safe bet to make and put some money on.
Fourth, Israel and Netanyahu simply want the poker game to keep playing out with economic sanctions and military strategy. We are probably on poker game version forty-two at present and Iran has figured out how to play poker in an effective manner. Iran can't lose.....while they might be on a long-term strategy, they don't care about short-term losses.
Fifth, President Obama and Netanyahu? Basically.....two guys who have each run out of likability and flexibility. Netanyahu is up for election, and some Democratic Party wise-guys have shown up to help against his election chances. Bad strategy if you ask me.....but meddling in politics is now a daily event in US politics. Netanyahu has countered the White House strategy and now in their own backyard....something that they never envision.
The only option left besides signing some marginal treaty with Iran? Basically dig up fifteen Democratic senators who will side with the Republicans and vote prior to the treaty.....saying 'no' support, period. It'll make the President look weak, as well as the Secretary of State.....but we are at some point where there's nothing much to gain.
Bottom line? There's a nuke war to come sooner or later out of this, and it might not involve the Iranians versus the Israelis.....it might be involving the Saudis, and there might be some religious mullah folks who trigger the event. Then what? To have twenty-five nuke missiles fired off within a span of an hour and half of Riyadh and Tehran destroyed? Would it bother us that much? I think the White House is simply saying 'no'.....they don't care anymore....let the nuke scenario play itself out.
That's the simplicity of this discussion.....nukes actually going off and some people wising up over stupidity.
EU: Fake Net Neutrality
It was an odd event yesterday that rivaled the US net neutrality of last week.
While the EU commission on communications didn't say nothing in public.....their documents found their way into the hands of a couple of journalists. My humble guess is that some members of the commission disagree about what is being discussed and this was the only way to get public reaction.....complete open discussion prior to some big decision.
So, the talk within the commission? You can have full up and turbo-powered net neutrality. Yep....no one will stop net neutrality from occurring. Oddly....the telecom groups (commercial organizations) will have the authority to monitor and arrange speed to customers. In essence, there will be a minimum of two speed situations. Those who pay extra.....will get extra. Those who pay minimum.....will get plain vanilla speed. But in the end, everyone will get net neutrality.
I know.....you will start laughing because it's a fake scheme and doesn't do much of anything, but that's the only way to keep current rates where they are. You have to remember, there's already taxes built into the various government schemes in Europe.....so you pay a communications tax and sales tax into the package. To suggest another tax, for what? None of the current taxes find their way to improve the network....they simply move into the gov't pocket of revenue.
Folks disturbed by this? There are a number of folks who kept thinking the EU crowd would take the same steps as the FCC, and render net neutrality. Well, they will deliver on that promise.....but it's not real net neutrality and simply plays on words, at best.
Living in Europe, as I do....I've come to some realizations about where things are going. State-run and commercial-run TV is slowly dying off. It might take twenty years but neither is going to be the vehicle of choice in thirty years for most residents of Germany. Internet TV options will the pick, and state-run TV knows that it's a limited future for them....meaning their 18-Euro a month mandated tax is going to eventually dissolve. It's almost impossible as it is now.....to find some sixteen-year-old kid who watches state-run TV.
I think the EU commission is looking at the situation and simply preparing people for the package deal......you want real speed via net neutrality.....you will pay for it. The customer will determine this and sign up for it. The lesser-speed crowd? Month by month.....they will decline in number and more will opt for better speeds and more cost. The customer wins in the end.
As for the fake words of net neutrality here in Europe? As long as you say it's fair and you allow two speeds to exist.....people will believe it. You could utter 'beer neutrality' or 'car neutrality' or 'ice cream neutrality', and people would all believe in some fairness to be skimmed off the gimmick in question. That's life.
While the EU commission on communications didn't say nothing in public.....their documents found their way into the hands of a couple of journalists. My humble guess is that some members of the commission disagree about what is being discussed and this was the only way to get public reaction.....complete open discussion prior to some big decision.
So, the talk within the commission? You can have full up and turbo-powered net neutrality. Yep....no one will stop net neutrality from occurring. Oddly....the telecom groups (commercial organizations) will have the authority to monitor and arrange speed to customers. In essence, there will be a minimum of two speed situations. Those who pay extra.....will get extra. Those who pay minimum.....will get plain vanilla speed. But in the end, everyone will get net neutrality.
I know.....you will start laughing because it's a fake scheme and doesn't do much of anything, but that's the only way to keep current rates where they are. You have to remember, there's already taxes built into the various government schemes in Europe.....so you pay a communications tax and sales tax into the package. To suggest another tax, for what? None of the current taxes find their way to improve the network....they simply move into the gov't pocket of revenue.
Folks disturbed by this? There are a number of folks who kept thinking the EU crowd would take the same steps as the FCC, and render net neutrality. Well, they will deliver on that promise.....but it's not real net neutrality and simply plays on words, at best.
Living in Europe, as I do....I've come to some realizations about where things are going. State-run and commercial-run TV is slowly dying off. It might take twenty years but neither is going to be the vehicle of choice in thirty years for most residents of Germany. Internet TV options will the pick, and state-run TV knows that it's a limited future for them....meaning their 18-Euro a month mandated tax is going to eventually dissolve. It's almost impossible as it is now.....to find some sixteen-year-old kid who watches state-run TV.
I think the EU commission is looking at the situation and simply preparing people for the package deal......you want real speed via net neutrality.....you will pay for it. The customer will determine this and sign up for it. The lesser-speed crowd? Month by month.....they will decline in number and more will opt for better speeds and more cost. The customer wins in the end.
As for the fake words of net neutrality here in Europe? As long as you say it's fair and you allow two speeds to exist.....people will believe it. You could utter 'beer neutrality' or 'car neutrality' or 'ice cream neutrality', and people would all believe in some fairness to be skimmed off the gimmick in question. That's life.
Saturday, 14 February 2015
A 'Gift' From Our Friends?
You go and leave a balloon up in the upper atmosphere....to gather particles to examine later.
It comes down, and you do analysis of various things within the filter. So, you get down microscopic things....thinner than a hair, and you come to this little ball....made out of titanium with a biological material oozing out.
Man-made? They can't say that. This would have been way up in the upper atmosphere. Who goes around making titanium balls with an empty core....which you fill up with a biological material? So far, some British scientists and Nobel Prize winners have not been able to come up with much....except they don't think it was originated from the Earth....but they can't really prove that point.
Why pick titanium? Corrosion resistance. If you wanted to preserve something for awful long time....not just years or centuries.....but eons.....you'd use titanium.
So I come to my humble opinion. Let's say you were a fairly advanced race and knew of a thousand planets where life of some sort might survive.....but you assume that none exists there.....you might want to 'blast' the planet with a bucket of BB's.....titanium BB's.....loaded with various things that would evolve and plant themselves. Trees, shrubs, bacteria, grass, marijuana, peanuts, and so on. Whether they work or not....doesn't matter. And you wouldn't worry about long term development because you aren't thinking of a 1,000 years or 10,000, or even 100,000 years. You are thinking millions of years.
Unless someone comes up to prove it's only seven years old and has to be a Earth-made item.....it's pretty much going to result in everyone believing there's another intelligent life out there, and they have some type of agenda.
If you seed a thousand planets......you might want to eventually come out and check your success rate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)