That's neat.  We've nearly completed a tricorder, so maybe it's time for warp drive?

http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-d...


-b0b
(...nifty!)

Quote:


Sucks to be Venezuela.


-b0b
(...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.)

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/05/27/news/portland/south-portland-doctor-stops-...

Quote:


This is how much bloat is in the health insurance racket that we have today.

Speaking as a person who did not have health insurance for a very long time, I do not think it is fair to blame "dead beats" for insurance and health care costs.  Those "dead beats" wouldn't have to pay so much for health care if the prices weren't so ridiculous to begin with.

I for instance was working 60 hours a week, but paying for insurance would have basically cut my weekly pay to 35 hours, it cost me that much!

As it was, when I went to the hospital for a severe sinus infection (my nose was bleeding down my throat, couldn't wait any longer), the Doctor there checked my temperature, looked down my throat and nose and gave me a prescription.  I was literally in and out of the exam room in 5 minutes.

My bill, 260 dollars.

Ohh...I wanted to fly from Kzoo to Three Rivers!

So I'm curious as to what everyone is thinking about this Syria issue?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing...

Supporting it?  Another Iraq?  Constitutionality?  What's going on with both sides seemingly wanting this in our govt?

X

So where's the line we draw to stop helping the world?  Do we go to war when an African drug lord kills 30 people?  How about 2?

Why haven't we invaded Mexico yet?  Now THERE is a war!

X

This is one of those times that I don't envy the President in the least.  This is a complex issue and there really is no right answer.  If we don't invade, we're effectively telling the despots of the world that they can treat their own citizens in any manner they want and the rest of the world is just going to stand idly by and do nothing.  If we don't respond to this attack, what will discourage Syria from employing the same tactics again on a wider scale?  What will prevent some other crap-hole of a country from doing the same thing to their citizens?

On the other hand, if we do get involved, we run the risk of starting a conflict that will have a far higher death toll for the civilian population than we've seen thus far.  It's hard to spin a full-blown war as a humanitarian effort.  No matter how much technology the military adopts, even the most precise weaponry occasionally finds its way into a house, school, or place of work occupied by innocent individuals.

Personally, I'd like to see us go for a moderated approach similar to Libya.  Use precise attacks to debilitate government command-and-control facilities and hope the population can take care of the rest.  Of course, even this isn't exactly cut-and-dry.  After all, I work in a government facility and I have absolutely no input into military decisions, so it is difficult to advocate my government attacking a foreign government facility just because their governmental leaders are murderous assholes.

At the very least, if there is no imminent threat of further chemical warfare from Syria, I think the United States needs to back down until the international community agrees on a course of action.  I'm certainly not a fan of the United Nations, but we have an International Court of Justice for a reason.  Pursuant to an ICJ indictment, I would fully support military from the United States and other countries to the extent necessary to capture those responsible for the chemical attacks and bring them to trial.


-b0b
(...tough call, really.)