• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ants

  • Rank
    A Valiant Knight of the Fur!
  • Birthday 07/17/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    London, UK (Australian though)

Recent Profile Visitors

3,356 profile views
  1. That sucks. He will be missed.
  2. My best wishes Mormons that your daughter has no mental scars as well as being fine physically.
  3. Well, that's because that is kind of deliberate. The ACA was meant to lower costs, and since in the good ol US of A politically you can't actually have the government use its buying power to reduce costs, there are few methods to use out there. The one the ACA used was to try and not cover smaller stuff, and more big stuff. Hence deductibles. It sounds like you want the "insurance" to be a payment scheme on a month to month basis. But its not that. If insurance is working most people should be out of pocket, most of the time. Its meant to cover you for when things go wrong. Secondly, the ACA and health insurance in general has significant cross-subsidies from the young to the old. So even if you're not getting (in your mind) good value now, in 10, 20, 30 years time (no idea how old you are), then that may significantly reverse. Because you will then be being subsidised by younger participants. The ACA is taking a whole of life view, and smoothing payments. If you only concentrate on the current year, there is going to be a disconnect. On a side note regarding the deductibles, at least for employer plans. It may not be the ACA. In Australia, we've been seeing premiums and deductibles rise through the time period discussed as well, and obviously we didn't have the ACA go into effect here.
  4. I found the mention in that article that he'd been trying for years to get the story published a bit gobsmacking. Nobody would publish this story by a Pulitzer author? Not the main story by any means, but a wrinkle in the overall mosaic. It also shows clearly this wasn't meant to be posthumous. The author expected to be around for the reception the story received.
  5. Nobody laughed at its ability to be used by criminals. That was always one of the issues with it. This type of attack has also been performed on US hospitals. One paid the ransom last year.
  6. To be clear, I'm solidly in the "no impeachment" category. 2020 is another election where electoral boundaries get re-drawn. Democrats need to maximise their chances for 2020.
  7. Ah, I took your comment "Of course, part of this may not be 'fake news'" to be meaning you thought it was.
  8. Did you read the article? The article refers to a study, and very explicitly says: and also: It isn't using the anecdote at all, it is simply using the anecdote to give a human face to the statistical analysis that makes up the bulk of the article. Adding the bit about how difficult it is to get the appropriate ID is useful as well, which the anecdote helps explain. And the information on the 300,000 voters without strict ID to meet the requirements was from federal court records. Accusing the article of being fake news appears to be pretty unfair when its set out on its own the potential biases in the study's authors. The 200,000 number is explained. Its based on the general increase in voting observed in states that did not put in any voter restriction laws, and saying if Winsconsin had performed the same (instead of having a reduction) that there would have been 200,000 more voters. I do agree that there needs to be more work - the analysis around African-American turnout would need to be checked against more counties to ensure that any reduction isn't from Obama not running versus voter repression. Although they're are showing that in no-change states there was a reduction in counties with higher African-American population, the change was just significantly less than the change observed in states with increased voter restrictions. Performing the Winsconsin vs. Minnesota seems to be an attempt to check on this as a driver. Why do you consider it "fake news"?
  9. I think the good intentions of Scott are unfortunately bonkers. People with these prejudices can easily brush off an accusation of rudeness as either "they started it" (because of course anyone making that 'choice' is pushing themselves on the rest of the world) or that the rudeness is justified too either save that person's soul or society. Either way, I doubt they'll be fussed at the accusations of rudeness.
  10. Of course, the problem with that is sometimes the lone juror is right. In the Central Park 5 case in New York the initial trial's result was delayed as one juror believed the "confessions" were baloney as they contradicted themselves and the kids (in his words) clearly didn't have all the facts straight. But he caved under pressure from the other eleven. If he'd held on and it had been a mistrial, many would have described him like this guy is being described. But he would have been right. Certainly the public opinion was that the boys were clearly guilty, as is the perception of this man here. Now, that isn't to say the lone juror is always right. They will sometimes be a fruitcake, or prejudiced, or see things very differently, or hell even bought. But voting opposite the others isn't a guarantee of being wrong. In this particular case, given he's since pleaded guilty it was likely that the 12th man was wrong. But lets be careful with what changes we make due to that.
  11. At a distant remove, it seems like Corbyn acts like he's running for president rather than as head of a party with agreed policies.
  12. I think it is wrong and counterproductive to accuse any and all Trump supporters of simply allowing a dictator to rise.
  13. Really? That seems odd given the two movies are set about 40-50 years apart.
  14. Oops, yes Jackson. I don't think the film really aims for any humour. Not that it doesn't have a little bit, mostly around one character, but generally it's pretty serious. Has a bit of an Aliens vibe.
  15. Surprised nothing here on this. Saw it last weekend, thought it was pretty good. Always a limit on the level this type of movie can hit, but this hit all the right spots. The storyline actually was tight, the acting top notch, a little bit of humour but a strong sense of doom and danger. I was very pleased with the CGI and Kong "fit". Nice to see Hiddleston in a non-villain role, and Goodman, Larson and Jackman were all strong. Stay in the cinemas until the end of the credits. It is clear this is going to be part of a franchise, and the first instalment is very strong.