Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kee Hinckley
11,245 followers -
Fascinated by the boundaries of technology and social behavior.
Fascinated by the boundaries of technology and social behavior.

11,245 followers
About
Kee Hinckley's posts

Post has shared content
Sessions has placed himself on a collision course with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. As Thomas recently explained in a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in the case of Leonard v. Texas, not only has civil asset forfeiture "led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses" by law enforcement agencies around the country, but the practice is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution.

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
The challenges of making space cinemagraphs. "After a camera has been in space for a while, it’s sensor is riddled with hot pixels and dead pixels — pixels that are either permanently “on”, or no longer work at all. The interesting thing is that those hot pixels look almost like stars, so they’re not even that obvious in images of the sky, until you start compiling them into a time lapse. Suddenly, half the stars start moving (the real ones) and the other half stay in place (the hot pixels)."

Post has shared content
On the barrier to universal health coverage in the United States

The author notes that the Canadian model demonstrates that the US could ensure essential health care for all, but goes back to the bitter early days of political argument around the single-player plan (which originated in the province of Saskatchewan.

The significant difference pointed out was that in the Canadian debate, which was quite contentious, one premise was (and remains) very different from the ongoing American debate over the same matter (emphasis mine):

In point of fact, the Canadian health care system still has ideological opponents in Canada, both among doctors and rich patients who think their wealth should allow them to skip the queues that do indeed sometimes result from the monopsony more easily than they do now (by going to the US). The difference is that it is still not possible in Canada to admit in public that you don’t think that those who can’t afford it shouldn’t have access to quality care. Almost all domestic Canadian attacks on single payer acknowledge the need for universal coverage, even if their proposed solutions won’t work as well as single payer.

That is a deep and fundamental difference with the United States of America and its health care debate. Admitting to a belief that someone should suffer medically for lack of funds does not put you beyond the pale of politics.

It's the triumph of Ayn Rand as a pseudo-philosophical basis for greed being good: I've got mine -- you go pound sand. It's something that pops up in the comments of my discussion streams on a regular basis, and gets said pretty overtly in political discussions that you can read in the news every day: The government has no right to take my money to pay for someone else being sick. Or, Making me work and taking my money for something I don't agree with is slavery. It's stated implicitly even more often: People who can't afford health care don't deserve it: they're takers, welfare queens, drug addicts, layabouts (and Those People, too), and they should just get a job or move back to wherever or not have kids and then we won't have to worry about it.

If people can't afford medical care, it's their fault. They should die. Or whatever. Just don't take my money.

As long as those voices are a part of this debate -- and throw in not deserving food and shelter as well, as other social safety net programs come under fire in the massive tax cuts being proposed -- then the US will keep struggling over the basic premise that underlies the health insurance reform debate: am I my brother's keeper? Do I owe my neighbor anything? Is the social contract limited to not killing other people unless they take my stuff?

Should we let people who can't afford to live just die?



Post has attachment
Exercise your 2nd amendment right to a-salt bugs. Watch the video. Trust me.

h/t Blake

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
Upload your contacts to your Echo and everyone in your contacts with an Echo can call you. They finally added per-contact blocking. Whitelisting apparently isn't an option. Want to undo your mistake. You'll have to call Amazon on the phone.

Unless of course you happen to have an Amazon employee in your contacts :)

Post has shared content
Another candidate for "first up against the wall when the revolution comes". When your agency can't find a frikking gun 95% of the time, maybe you shouldn't be worrying about who's in somebody's cellphone contacts list.

DHS boss John Kelly continues to push for ultimate government intrusiveness, whether at the borders where the CBP will handle the getting all up in your everything, or at airports, where the TSA will examine the hell out of travelers' electronics while overlooking explosives, guns, and other more dangerous contraband.
The DHS is no longer perched atop a slippery slope. It's enthusiastically sliding down it with both hands in the air. The Center for Democracy and Technology asked the DHS the same questions a few legislators have: what are you doing to protect the rights of US citizens at the border? The answer, in the form of a noncommittal letter, is an official shrug of indifference.

Post has attachment
Drying time

Post has attachment
Bath time
Wait while more posts are being loaded