Term insurance pays out about 4% of their policies. Of course, that's why term is so cheap.

Most people don't understand insurance. Saw on another board some dope who thought insurance companies would want risk increased. That makes no sense at all. The reason we all have to wear seat belts is because of insurance companies.

"Doped-Up Newscasters: The Show"

It was 1976 that there was kerfuffle over the East German womens swim team and doping... when it was pointed out that the girls had rather deep voices, a DDR official said, "we came here to swim, not to sing."

DOPE

How cool would this be. Score a dope jacket. http://youtu.be/g7CRMrR24Mo

$9000!?! Sooo...is that with or without insurance? Because I'm not sure if you've heard, but our prez has this new fangled ACA out and it's supposed to be dope.

Personally I feel that they system should be that you get 10 years of pension time. Use it for retirement or a year when you are 30 having a kid, which would leave you 9. Or some other issue like loosing your job.
But this off time should be roughly equal to you current pay. Retirement should be looked at a little differently because you are looking at a lifespan of work. But if you are 20 and want to go to school for 2 years and you quit your minimum wage job then you get subsidized 2 years at minimum wage.

You will look at entitlements a lot differently and also will look at how others squander theirs and run out early.

I don't care if you are 20 and suck 5years of minimum wage to buy dope, drink and other stupid stuff. When your 10 years are burned through then you are cut off.

Never underestimate the value of tough love.

Conversely, you would greatly consider when you retire. If I burned up 3 years of entitlements and only have 7 left then I'd better keep on working into the 70's.

Granted this is a grand pie in the sky idea but I do think it is some what workable.
And yes there should be a cap of say $100k.

To address you point about general Right leaning ideas:
Us on the Right don't hate poor people. We just don't want to continually hand out a free lunch. We do want all to have the same opportunity in life, a level playing field.

However corporations and government slice and dice the rules knowing that Americans have no clue of the intent of the Founders, or the Constitution. When the Right brings up the Constitution the Left points the finger and says that the Right wants to bring back slavery. No we don't. WE want all to have a level playing field. We don't hate Obama for being "black" we hate him for the policies and decisions that he puts forth. No more, no less.

Also the Right has no problems for a black man in a leadership role. But when we ( the Right) hold a man of color in high esteem ( Ben Carson) the Left cuts them down as an Uncle Tom and quickly dismiss any positive values that the man brings forth.

Finally there should be no sacred cows when it comes to cutting spending. Cut Military spending, Redo social security, entitlements. put everything on the table.
We are going broke point fingers at each other and not getting anything done.


Have a good day Newtboy

As lost as Bill is on this issue at least this clip provide both sided of the argument. Fox does have more balance than MSNBC

If the editor was a cancer patient or such then would Bill would be ok with the dope eating editor?

I like this better than the original and I haven't even seen that one. Good show! The match ups were super-awkward! The lecherous old white guy with the black woman wins. Also, I want a hat that says "dope"

You are thinking about QAM, Quadrature Amplitude Modulation. Thats an interesting question because QAM essentially produces the same results that the prof talks about in this video. By using interesting ways to change the beat and phase of a single carrier, one can represent a whole array of numbers greater than just a 1 or a zero with a single pulse, case in point.

In QAM, lets just use the easy example of QAM, QPSK (4QAM), where there are 4 possible binary positions for any given 'carrier' signal at a known frequency.

By shifting both phase and amplitude, you can get a 0, 1, 2 or 3, where each position represents a power of 2, up to a total value of 16 unique numbers.

Rather than just a 0 or a 1, you can have 0 through to 15. However doing this requires both a timeslot, and a known carrier window.

The fastest the QAM transmitter can encode onto a carrier is limited by the nyquist rate, that is, less than half the frequency which the receiver can sample at its fastest rate (on the remote end). As you increase the speed of the encoding, you also increase the error rate, and introduce more noise into the base carrier signal, in turn, reducing your effective available bandwidth.

So it then becomes a balancing act, do I want to encode faster, or do I want to increase my constellation density? The obvious answer is the one we went with, increase in constellation density.

There are much more dense variants, I think the highest ive heard of was 1024 QAM, where a single carrier of 8MHz wide could represent 1024 bits (1,050,625 unique values for a given 'pulse' within a carrier).

I actually had a lot more typed out here, but the maths that goes into this gets very ugly, and you have to account for noise products that are introduced as you increase both your transmission speed, and your receiver sensitivty, thus lowering your SNR, reducing your effective bandwidth for a given QAM scheme.

So rather than bore you with the details, the Shannon Hartley theorem is the hard wired physical limitation.

Think of it as an asymptote, that QAM is one method of trying to milk the available space of.

You can send encoded pulses very fast, but you are limited by nyquist, and your receivers ability to determine noise from signal.

The faster you encode, the more noise, the less effective bandwidth....and so begins the ritule of increasing constellation density, and receivers that can decode them....etc....

There is also the aspect of having carriers too close to one another that you must consider. If you do not have enough of a dead band between your receivers cut off for top end, and the NEXT carrier alongs cutoff for deadband at its LOW end, you can induce what is known as a heterodyne. These are nasty, especially so when talking about fibre, as the wavelengths used can cause a WIDE BAND noise product that results in your effective RF noise floor to jump SUBSTANTIALLY, destroying your entire network in the process.

So not only can you not have a contiguous RF bandwidth of carriers, one directly after another...if you try and get them close, you end up ruining everyones day.

I am sure there will be newer more fancy ways to fill that spectrum with useable numbers, but I seriously doubt they will ever go faster than the limit I proposed earlier (unless they can get better SNR, again that was just a stab in the dark).

It gives you a good idea of how it works though.

If you want to read more on this, I suggest checking wikipedia for the following;

Shannon Hartley theorem.
Nyquist Rate
Quadrature Phase Shift Key
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
Fibre Optic Communication Wavelengths
Stimulated Brillouin Scattering
Ebrium Doped Fibre Amplifiers

Fibre can go a pretty long distance before it affects the signal though...

Fibre is comprised mainly of silicone, the more pure the fibre, the less dispersion issues occur at or around 1550nm (one of the main wavelengths used for long distance transmission, as we can easily and cheaply amplify this using ebrium doped segments and some pumps!)

Any impurities in the fibre will absorb the 1550 at a greater rate than other wavelengths, causing linear distortions in the received carrier along greater distances. This is called Brillouin scattering.

In the context of the above video, consider a paralell cable sending data over 100m. If one of those lines is 98m, then every bit that is sent down that line, will be out of order.

Same deal with Brillouin scattering, only on the optical level. Thats one of the main issues we gotta deal with at distance, however it only ever occurs at or around 1550nm, and only ever when you are driving that carrier at high powers (i.e. launching into the fibre directy from an ebrium doped amplifier at +15 dBm)

Theres some fancy ways of getting around that, but its not cheap.

Anywhere from say around 1260 to 1675nm is the typical bandwidth window we use today.

So, say 415nm of available bandwidth.
If we want that in frequency to figure out the theoritcal bits/sec value from the shannon-hartley theory, then we just take the inverse of the wavelength and times it by the speed of light.

7.2239e+14 hz is the available spectrum.

...thats 7.2239e+5 terahertz....

Assume typical signal to noise on fibre carrier of +6dB (haha, not a chance in hell it would be this good across this much bandwidth, but whatever..)

For a single fibre you would be looking at an average peak bandwidth of around 20280051221451.9 mbps.

Thats 19,340,564 Terabits per second, or 18,887.3 Petabits per second.

You can fudge that +/- a couple of million Tbps based on what the actual SnR would be, but thats your average figure.....thats a lot of Terabits.

On one fibre.

Source: Im a telecoms engineer

I was just watching the rumble in the jungle. Dude was the king of rope-a-dope.

It's nice to hear some of those dope battle rhymes as *livemusic as well.

Just the facts, ma'am: Your son is a drug peddling, user, dope fiend, dredged stoner deranged mentally maladjusted offender of this God fearing, drug regulating, fear inducing, hammer driving country. Down with the communism.

Kill yourself if you can't compete. And certainly an austistic child has no place in this society of sociopathic greed mongerers.

I seem to recall reading something in Freakonomics that went into detail about how much your average dope seller makes, and it's as bad or worse than what a burger flipper gets paid. It turns out that gangs are structured much like corporate America, the people at the top make huge bank while the typical foot soldier gets all the risk and makes squat.