Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Redistribution (422 comments)

How about the out of pocket maximums? Lifetime maximums? Every other detail that you've omitted? They've all stayed the same?

I didn't think so.

12 minutes ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Redistribution (422 comments)

If your costs went up that significantly, then your coverage has changed dramatically. It's overwhelmingly likely that your previous policy had terrible coverage, coverage which doesn't meet requirements set forth in the ACA. Your costs have increased, but so has your coverage, comparably. If the increases you claim are accurate, then your previous policy was total shit and wouldn't have helped you much were you to actually need it for anything serious.

In short, you're complaining that passage of the ACA has forced you to upgrade your previous Fischer-Price insurance (which is a lot more like "no insurance" than it is like "today's insurance") so that your unpaid medical bills wouldn't be spread amongst the rest of us. Welcome to the world of personal responsibility and pulling your own weight.

14 minutes ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Redistribution (422 comments)

Thank you for reminding me that I still mix up COBRA and CORBA.

22 minutes ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Redistribution (422 comments)

How does one freelance in banking?

about half an hour ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Redistribution (422 comments)

So it is an income redistribution plan. What we really need is a prosperity plan

I'd argue that there's certainly plenty of wealth in this country. Net national wealth is $83.7T, so that's about $280k per person (or $301k per person according to a recent Credit Suisse Global Wealth report); most people wouldn't be complaining if their net worth was $280k --- most Americans today have a net worth that is less than $45k. While more prosperity is always nice, it's somewhat unreasonable to make baseless claims that redistribution of wealth is less needed than prosperity. While I can sympathize with the fact that redistribution of wealth may not be compatible with your personal ideology, it would probably be better for everyone if we could discuss these issues in terms of numbers and facts, not political preferences.

36 minutes ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re:how many small businesses has Obama killed? (422 comments)

You appear to be suggesting that we keep the "pre-existing conditions" bit but eliminate the individual mandate. Do you have an explanation for why people would carry health insurance coverage while they're healthy instead of simply waiting to sign up until they need it?

about an hour ago
top

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare

NoImNotNineVolt Re: how many small businesses has Obama killed? (422 comments)

you need to strictly control population growth in the welfare class

Don't worry, the 1% have rigged society to ensure minimal economic mobility, which should be sufficient to prevent any significant growth in the number of parasites at the top.

Oh, you mean the other welfare class...

1 hour ago
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re:You want to know why we're fat? (139 comments)

I did this a few months ago. It was incredibly cumbersome using my tiny scale, but it was somewhat satifying to have such a precise log of my nutritional intake. Good luck in your dieting. I was able to stay below 20g net carbs by eating the same thing every day. 2 eggs + 2 slices bacon + 2 slices american cheese for breakfast, a Chipotle salad bowl w/ double chicken (no rice, no beans, mild, medium, and hot salsas, and cheese) for lunch, and a grocery-store rotisserie chicken w/ an avocado and a mountain of steamed broccoli for dinner. Even left me with a few spare grams of carbs for snacks if I felt suicide was imminent. Took me a while to figure out how to get my carbs that low, so good luck!

2 hours ago
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Obesity (139 comments)

Consider that only 58,000,000 Americans have gym memberships, and that only 1/3 actually make use of these memberships, and you're looking at fewer than 1 in 10 Americans that actually go to the gym. Furthermore, many of these people focus more on cardio than strength training. Additionally, let's not forget the rather sizeable proportion of gym people that are only there for their first or second time, will shortly stop going entirely, and are, frankly, fat as fuck.

The percentage of Americans that engages in the sort of strength training you describe is very, very small. Much smaller than the 35% of the population that is clinically obese. Some small part of this 35% is surely Mike Tysons or random fat dudes that bench 415 lbs. However, this small part doesn't really change the fact that the overwhelming majority are indeed fat. If you subtract out the people who have low body fat but exceptionally high muscle mass (and are thus falsely identified as obese), I doubt the obesity rate would fall below 34%.

3 hours ago
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re:You want to know why we're fat? (139 comments)

Doesn't McDonalds sell a double cheese burger for $1?

So you're saying that if you're willing to pay a 25% premium, you'll earn the ability to waste time at the grocery store and in your kitchen?

Sold!

I spend a lot of time and money cooking my own food, but living off fast food was a lot cheaper (in terms of both money and time). It's an odd world we live in.

yesterday
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re:You want to know why we're fat? (139 comments)

save money = spend time

The people with the least money have already traded away all of their time (in the form of second jobs, etc).

yesterday
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re: Average body size (139 comments)

Did you just feign stupidity in an attempt to be clever?

yesterday
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re:Obesity (139 comments)

You're right, maybe that's what the problem is. Maybe America isn't getting incredibly fat, maybe we're just getting incredibly muscular.

*goes to Walmart*

Nope. Incredibly fat. Sorry.

yesterday
top

New Crash Test Dummies Reflect Rising American Bodyweight

NoImNotNineVolt Re:What did you expect.. (139 comments)

I've never met anyone who hated gays for the fact that they had unusual sexual desires, only for the fact that they act on those desires.

That's odd, my experience has been pretty much the exact opposite.

I've never met anyone who hated gays for the fact that they acted on their desires, only for the fact that they identified as gay. Most gay-haters would hate a lisp-talking limp-wristed flamboyantly fabulous man that claims to be gay regardless of his sexual escapades, and they wouldn't have a problem with a bible-thumping wife-and-kids-having man's man that claims to be straight but secretly sucks cock.

We must run in different circles?

yesterday
top

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

NoImNotNineVolt Re:But where are the potentional profits? (107 comments)

I cared about a possible typo from someone whose brain doesn't seem to be operating very well. It wouldn't have been possible for me to not care about information that was not in my possession at the time of not caring. You really are bizarre!

Keep in mind that I'm replying to an unknown number of ACs in this thread. However, I was asked who cares about my sig. I answered that question and provided the reasoning for my answer. Now you're talking about possible typos and some very awkward statement about possessing information that I can't parse quite right. I don't know what you're saying, but if you have some objection to the response I provided, I ask that you word it in a way that makes sense to me.

You talk about physics but brush aside any physical argument against your childhood fantasies.

Nike's slogan isn't a "physical argument", nor are the ad hominem attacks. I'm wide open to any rational arguments, though, if you care to provide them. Preferably ones that involve the known laws of physics, not metaphors about drowning.

" It comes to those who work for it."

Great, a space Calvinist.

While I did lol, this seems like a good time to mention that Calvinists aren't the only ones who believe that activity (generally speaking) produces greater results than inactivity.

yesterday
top

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

NoImNotNineVolt Re:But where are the potentional profits? (107 comments)

There was fertile ground, air and water on the other side of the ocean. Space is just empty.

There was plenty of fertile ground, air, and water back in Europe. Columbus wasn't in search of fertile ground, air, and water any more than today's space explorers are in search of emptiness.

It's also too far. The next time there's a rainy afternoon, and you have nothing to do, check out the Tsiolkovky rocket equation, pick a destination, maximum allowed travel time, and payload mass, and calculate how much fuel (and fuel tanks) you would need to get there. Please also allow fuel for braking, and landing on the target (or at least orbiting it), and have a realistic payload mass with regards to travel time and communication with Earth.

It's apparent that chemical rockets aren't going to get us very far. While they may tempt us with reasonable thrust, the specific impulse is lacking, to say the least. That makes them uniquely unsuitable for any voyage where speed is a primary concern, which it is for any destination outside the solar system. Of course, we have designs for propulsion systems that from a half century ago (that could have been built using the technology available a half century ago) that solve this problem, but political considerations have ensured that they won't be flying any time soon. It would've been 133 years to Alpha Centauri (but without slowing back down). Also, recent developments relating to the VASIMR drive and solar sails could put an even more impressive lower bound on how fast we could get to Alpha Centauri (down to ~100 years including slowdown).

Furthermore, this really has very little to do with the argument at hand. Space is big, but so is time. Just because we're launching people into space on giant firecrackers today doesn't mean that this is the only (or the best) way to travel long distances. It's not unreasonable to suspect that if we try, we'll find better ways in due time. That we've gone from riding horses to riding giant firecrackers in the span of a few millenia suggests that in a few more millenia, we might be able to travel faster still. That all we have today is giant firecrackers is not a sound argument against working to improve the state of the art.

yesterday
top

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

NoImNotNineVolt Re:But where are the potentional profits? (107 comments)

Then you know so much, DO IT. Stop talking, stop typing, stop reading AND DO IT. You presented the slam dunk business case, NOW DO IT.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

Or shut the hell up with your childish 1960s space age garbage. No one is going anywhere. You are the one with your tired space rhetoric, your empty promises, your delusions about this big market for water in space and these fantasies about these fuel factories floating around a sucking void, and your conflation of these ancient ideas with "progress". You want progress? You're afraid of progress, that's why you clutch to ancient fantasies like a drowning man hanging on to a 2x4 in the Pacific.

I forgive you for your words of anger.

The real progress will happen down here. There's 7 billion people waiting right here for progress.

Progress does not come to those who wait for it. It comes to those who work for it.

No one is waiting out there for your fantasies. And for your sig, that just shows you clutch to the past. Who cares about your 15 year old TMZ crap?

Funny that you should ask! Actually, this AC cares about my "15 year old TMZ crap", as evidenced by his query. And this was just a few hours ago! Also, for the record, my sig (well, the expression currently found in my sig) predates TMZ by roughly a decade. You have a funny way of seeing the world.

yesterday
top

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

NoImNotNineVolt Re:But where are the potentional profits? (107 comments)

any fuel that is spent beyond Earth orbit doesn't need to be launched from Earth

Very few rockets need to go beyond Earth orbit. Except for some research on other planets, there's nothing out there.

No rockets "need to" go anywhere. The only things that "need to" happen (in an absolute sense) are those things which are required by the laws of physics or the laws of logic. A millenium ago, very few ships needed to cross oceans. That doesn't mean that there wasn't great benefit to be had from trying to cross them anyway. With time, the need developed. The need did not preceed the development. Today, very few rockets "can go" beyond Earth orbit. With a fuel depot in orbit, that would change. It's possible (i'd say likely) that as we develop our space exploration technologies, we'll see increasing returns from our efforts, until a time when it is evident that "we need" spaceflight much like "we need" transoceanic shipping today.

Regarding your other claim, well, I couldn't disagree more. Except for nearly everything in the entire observable universe, there's nothing out there. Indeed, the volume encosed by the set of all possible LEOs accounts for a negligible proportion of the observable universe. Virtually everything is out there, and we've barely snuck a peek yet. It seems quite presumptuous to make claims about that which we know so very little about. Back in the day, you'd have been the one complaining about how Columbus was wasting the crown's resources on his foolish high-seas adventures. As the human race has come to dominate this world thanks to the spirit of explorers, I invite you to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Obviously this poses a problem for vertically staged rocket designs, but not others

Are there other types in use ?

Of course!
Well, there's the family of SSTO launchers (of which none have been built), including the Skylon spaceplane. Granted, none of those are "in use".
There's also all the horizontally-staged rockets. The "Space Shuttle" was probably one of the more recognizable of these systems. There's the IOS rockets that will be launching all the TubeSat things. Neither of these are currently "in use" either, but there have been a variety in the past and I'm assuming that other launchers of this design type are still flying.

yesterday
top

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

NoImNotNineVolt Re:But where are the potentional profits? (107 comments)

Going by TFA there's almost twice as much worth of metals than water available on this thing, so why would you focus on only getting the water for apparently the only use of making rocket fuel?

Indeed, as you noted in your followup post, it's all just conjecture. It's unlikely to be just water, and it's unlikely to contain no water at all. I chose the number that was more favorable to my position, which was perhaps not totally honest. Don't expect rigorous number-crunching from back-of-napkin calculations performed in support of posts in long slashdot threads.

So basically what your saying is go get this thing and either mine it in space or put it in an orbit that works for us and use it solely as a fuel source for rockets? That's the only use you seem to be focusing on.

Both, really. Tow it to Earth orbit, then proceed to mine it in Earth orbit. I'm only focusing on mining water because it's the only non-sci-fi resource we need in orbit right now. Sure, some time in the future we might have use for other volatiles or maybe metals or I don't know what, when we're trying to build superstructures in space. But that's not today. Today, we don't have much going on in space, so we don't really have many immediate uses for unprocessed (or minimally processed) resources in space. We do however have an immediate need for water. Water as fuel, drink, and shielding. Talk of mining other resources is akin to futurism (which is cool, but not the basis for a sound business plan today).

I mean all you have to is zap it with electricity right?

You need to melt it first. To do that, you need to contain it, under pressure, since water doesn't have a liquid state in the vacuum of space. Then when it's liquid, indeed, you just zap it. Hydrogen will appear at the cathode, oxygen at the anode. Keep them separate and you're done. Of course, you may want to purify the water first, to preserve your electrodes. That complicates things a bit, since now you're talking about potentially doing fractional distillation in a weightless environment. But indeed, this isn't rocket science. It's not a project for the high school science fair, but it's not rocket science either.

Having a great fuel supply available in space is great for the rockets (presuming they don't start using a different fuel in the future).

Indeed, that's a real risk. The water-in-orbit market might collapse a bit if water were no longer useful as an economical fuel source. That's not going to happen for as long as we're using chemical rockets, though. There's no chemical fuel energy-dense enough to warrant lugging it up out of this gravity well. Even if we figure out amazingly awesome chemical fuels, the cost of launching them from Earth will make it unlikely that they'll be cost-competitive with space-sourced electrolyzed water.

But you still need to either make a processing plant on the asteroid (big bucks) or develop a bunch of space trucks (big bucks) to fetch to somewhere where there is processing plants.

The former, not the latter. The planned asteroid capture mission(s) have shown that it's probably not that hard to lasso ourselves a nice rock and put it in Earth orbit. Of course, these plans all hinge upon some rather shaky assumptions about asteroids. I grant that there is a chance that it could be much harder than we expect. But our expectations are still "it shouldn't be that hard". I agree that perfecting the technology to do all this in space will cost big bucks, and then working out the kinks until it's economically viable will likely take some time. However, this is about as unambitious as it gets. We're talking about melting the water out of a frozen rock and then applying an electric current through it. This isn't exactly a smelter.

I'll be the first to admit I know fuck all about how to make rocket fuel from water but I assume you need more than a giant cattle prod. You did say you need 'nothing more than electricity' but that's not strictly true is it?

Indeed, see above. However, as far as current technology goes, this system is well within the bounds of what we know we can do today.

That's like saying you need nothing more than steam to generate electricity, and hey, steam comes from water so we can use the water to make the electric to make the fuel from the water. You know what. Sounds like a foolproof idea, I'll race you to the patent shop.

Oversimplification :)

yesterday
top

MIT Professor Advocates Ending Asteroid Redirect Mission To Fund Asteroid Survey

NoImNotNineVolt Re:But where are the potentional profits? (107 comments)

A bank? Really? A bank?

You know how I know you don't own a business? Because you think banks are a possible source of funding for these types of projects.

yesterday

Submissions

top

All-in-one Digital Credit Card

NoImNotNineVolt NoImNotNineVolt writes  |  about a year ago

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) writes "Coin, a Y Combinator-backed startup, has started accepting pre-orders for a device as slim as a standard piece of payment plastic that can hold eight credit, debit, and gift cards in its dynamic magnetic stripe. Paired with the Coin smartphone app via Bluetooth low energy, card details can easily be swapped in and out of the device. A minimalist user interface on the device itself allows the owner to toggle between the loaded cards and then swipe just as they would their ordinary card. All card details are encrypted (both on the device and in the smartphone app), and the device's on-board battery is expected to last for two years of typical usage. No support for chip&pin (EMV) yet, so this may have limited utility outside of the USA. They expect to start shipping in summer of 2014."
Link to Original Source

Journals

NoImNotNineVolt has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?