…has arrived.
Plus, Crashapalooza on the exchanges.
[Update a while later]
What ObamaCare and the debt limit have in common.
Category Archives: Economics
Convert ObamaCare
…to a free-market system.
What a concept.
The ObamaCare Video Contest
Give Remy the prize.
Blackberry
How the mighty have fallen. It’s game over.
I never used one myself.
Bill Gates’s Nuclear Ambitions
I’m not a huge Bill Gates fan, but he certainly gets this important issue. Cheap energy is the key to reducing poverty. As long as government policies aren’t insane, of course. And we need it for space as well. The lack of progress in space nuclear reactors for the past half century is appalling.
Our (Near) Future Lifespan
I think it’s a mistake to call the fourth one “immortality.” A better phrase is “indefinite lifespan.” Unless our understanding of the universe is wrong, we’ll all die eventually, when it gets cold. And medical breakthroughs won’t save us from having an ACME anvil dropped on us.
Absent backups, that is. Which is philosophically unsatisfying, from the standpoint of identity.
But we need to start thinking about policy in terms of scenarios three and four, and ObamaCare is a disaster on that front (as is social security, lifetime tenure for academics and judges and popes, etc.). Plus, if people are going to continue to be born, and not die, we will eventually need other places to live than this planet.
Meet The New Generation Of Robots
They’re almost human.
I think it’s going to be more important that they act human than that they look it, until they figure out a way to bridge the uncanny valley.
The “California Comeback”?
What “California comeback”?
ObamaCare’s Weakest Link
It’s the IT, stupid.
As noted over there, this whole mess started with Roosevelt’s wage controls during the war. But did they fix that? No, they triple down on the socialist stupidity.
The Reply To “Bad Astronomer” About Climate Skepticism
…that Slate refused to publish:
The argument I made was that climate change has benefits as well as costs and that the benefits are likely to be greater than the costs until almost the end of the current century. I maintain that the balance of evidence supports the conclusion that up to a certain level of warming — about 2 degrees Celsius — the benefits of climate change will probably outweigh the costs. Plait admits that there will be benefits, but he assumes that they are smaller than the harm however small the warming and that I am somehow foolish for not sharing his assumption. He gives no source for this claim, which flies in the face of peer-reviewed sources.
Sadly, that’s Phil’s style. His claims are essentially faith-based.
[Update a few minutes later]
Climate moron David Suzuki doesn’t even know what the data sets are.