Disqus - Latest Comments for jkhoffman

Re: React and MVC - Made Tech Blog

jkhoffman — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 14:32:47 -0000

What do renderHtml() and renderJson() functions look like? They don't look like methods on the response object, nor do they take the response as args. How do they render a response without touching the response object?

Re: NASA’s study on Antarctica’s ice: It’s growing

jkhoffman — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:52:35 -0000

Did the author happen to notice where NASA said, "The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean?"

The Antarctic and the Arctic are two different places, right? We gained a little in one, but lost way more in the other?

You know that game hustlers play on the street, where they hide a small object under 3 cups, shuffle them around, and ask you to pick which one it's under? The author of this article did the same thing, using sleight of hand (mouth?) to deceive.

Re: Why New York is wrong about fracking

jkhoffman — Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:10:22 -0000

You're a luddite. Tesla has a plan to build a network of solar-powered charging stations across the U.S. Renewables are the future, wake up!

Re: As new year begins, Colo. embraces newly legalized marijuana as part of culture

jkhoffman — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 03:05:28 -0000

I'm not saying people should operate planes, trains, or automobiles while using, but...

I'm a wheelchair user. I've been using a joystick-driven chair since I was 3 years old. At 37, it's virtually part of my body now.

Unless I drink. When I drink too much, that intimate connection I have with my chair is broken, and the toes of everyone around me are in danger. If I drink a little more, smashing into walls and door frames is possible (likely, even.)

Not true with cannabis! There is no amount I can smoke (or dab) that disconnects me from my wheelchair like alcohol. An overdose on hash edibles might do it, but that's it.

My experience is backed up by a recent study at a Washington university (sorry, I don't have the link) where they found that frequent cannabis users were not significantly impaired. The TV report showed a college-aged girl, a medical user, rip a bong and drive the course just fine.

Infrequent users were a different story, so if you're a lightweight or first-time user, don't even think about it!

Cannabis can make one do forgetful, or bone-headed things (like searching all over for the glasses on your head.) That can be dangerous in the car, if you zone into changing the radio station, for example. So, again, I'm definitely not recommending people drive stoned.

For regular users, though, I know for a fact (from my daily wheelchair use) that cannabis use will not make you a bad driver. I could rip a bong and ace any obstacle course, in my chair. Anyone who says cannabis is AT ALL comparable to alcohol with regard to driving is either misinformed or has an agenda.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is dead-serious. I drive my chair more than a long-haul trucker drives his rig. If *I* can't drive my wheelchair after a couple stiff drinks, no one has a CHANCE of doing better in their vehicle.

Re: Sabet: Legal pot would mean more addiction

jkhoffman — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:39:25 -0000

What a bunch of half-truths...

"Interestingly, though, according to criminologist Mark Kleiman, if all drug prisoners were released tomorrow, we would still have four times the number of people in prison than our historical incarceration rate instead of five. That tells me that the root causes of drug use, trafficking and crime, must be seriously tackled."

I don't think the author is dumb, so he must think we are. You don't think we understand that when you make something illegal that people want, it creates a black market? The black market drives the prices up to the point that people start killing each other over it. That easily explains the "four times" figure quoted above.

Eliminate the black market and you eliminate the incentive for violence. It's simple, and it's being proven as we watch. The Mexican cartels are already starting to shift their focus to more lucrative drugs... they know the marijuana game will soon be over for them in the U.S.

Re: Boston victims face lifetime of medical bills

jkhoffman — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:21:51 -0000

Sadly, for the victims of the Boston Bombing that have life-long disabilities, they'll be facing an entirely new reality as 2nd-class citizens in America.

- They will be told that, if they need any significant help with their disability, that they cannot work without risk of losing the help they need. Medicaid is the only program that really helps, and you have to be dead broke to qualify.

- They'll be told that their spouse's income will be tallied together with their own to determine if they qualify for the help they need. If the spouse has a full-time job making minimum wage, they'll get zero assistance. So called "spousal deeming" will make sure the spouse goes broke, too, before the government steps in to help.

- They'll realize that much of the help they need is dependent on State law, and they will no longer be able to move around within the U.S. freely like other citizens. Massachusetts may take good care of them, but if they move to a Red State they'll be left to fend for themselves. Much of the U.S. is now off-limits to them.

I'm 37, have Muscular Dystrophy, and face all of these challenges myself. I'm forced to choose between living a productive working life or getting the help I need. I'm forced to tell any woman that thinks about marrying me that, if we tie the knot, I will lose all my nursing care and be her 100% her responsibility. And, should I wish to move, I'm first forced to learn the intricacies of State & County law to make sure I'll have the basic services I require in my new home.

Worst of all, since the system financially devastates everyone with a disability, we can't afford to organize and develop an effective lobbying machine to change things.

I hope there is a large fund set up to help the victims in Boston, because under the current system, they're going to feel like 2nd-class citizens.

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:21:50 -0000

Your numbers are wrong, again, Fred...

Insurance companies moaned that the ACA was going to hurt profitability. But, since the ACA passed, "Health insurance companies saw their average profit margins swell from 6.88 percent in the 18 months preceding the overhaul to 8.24 percent in the six quarters since."

8.24% still isn't as big as the medical equipment (13%) or drug (20%+) guys, but it ain't bad.

Doubt me? Google it.

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:14:48 -0000

"I would also submit virtually any government run program of any sort is handicapped, because of their inability to administer a programs efficiently."

You do know that Medicare Advantage was designed to be a "free market experiment," allowing the insurance companies to compete with and, eventually, beat Medicare's price.

Problem is, it never happened. To this day Medicare is offering a higher quality of care at a better price than any of the Advantage providers could match, let alone actually beat.

Prove your dribble.

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:00:43 -0000

I took your advice and Google'd for "Cliff Notes ACA".

Found this in the first paragraph of the Forbes article: "These changes are important to the infrastructure of our health care system and are sorely needed. Implore our leaders to think hard about the rhetoric of repeal..."

Guess you missed that part?

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:44:17 -0000

Obama does NOT want to reduce payments. In March 2010 he wrote, in a letter to Republicans, "At the meeting, Senator Grassley raised a concern, shared by many Democrats, that Medicaid reimbursements to doctors are inadequate in many states, and that if Medicaid is expanded to cover more people, we should consider increasing doctor reimbursement. I’m open to exploring ways to address this issue in a fiscally responsible manner."

Quit acting like his goal is to reduce payments. That's simply untrue.

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:24:36 -0000

Prove it, Fred. You keep making baseless accusations. When has Obama lowered provider payments?

Payments are being lowered, yes... by State legislators. My guess is, if you peer under the hood of most of those State-level cuts you'll find Republican fingerprints all over them.

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:03:59 -0000

So, Fred, you put the blame squarely on Obama? Nevermind the unprecedented (in our entire history) use of filibuster by Republicans? Nevermind Grover Norquist? Obama should've been able to make good on his promises anyway?

I'm sure it was his fault for not being a good enough leader...

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 01:59:37 -0000

Nice idea. Facts and history say otherwise. Republican policy (beginning with Raegan's tax cuts) is what brought us to where we are. Look at history -- it's plain to see.

Re: Traditional Medicare could be weakened under Romney-Ryan - Aug. 18, 2012

jkhoffman — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 01:56:42 -0000

The Republican party is directly responsible for almost all $16 trillion of that debt, starting back in the 80s with "trickle down economics." Republicans voted for the Bush tax cuts, voted to fund the Iraq war as a non-budget item, voted for the Medicare drug benefit which was a non-budget item (Ryan himself was the architect of that voodoo), voted for TARP, the list goes on and on.

Republicans keep saying they're more financially responsible. I'll believe it when I see it!

Re: Romney did Obama a huge favor

jkhoffman — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:19:45 -0000

One word: filibuster.

Re: Romney's pick of Ryan as his running mate energizes conservatives, opponents

jkhoffman — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:35:03 -0000

Yeah, right. America will have the same popular revolt Greece did if we go down that road. You may think you want it - but if you get it, you're not going to like the taste.

Re: Eurozone economy 'in dire straits' - The Buzz - Investment and Stock Market News

jkhoffman — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:44:58 -0000

I recently watched a show, 60 Minutes, on Brazil's economy.

Brazil's GDP is projected to grow by 4% in 2012, and grew 7% in 2010. They are the 2nd largest economy in the Americas. 8-10 years ago, that was not the case. What changed?

They elected a guy everyone was calling a "socialist," Luiz Lula. He strictly regulated business, and paid parents $125/month if they took their kids to the doctor and kept them in school. Suddenly, the market boomed and a middle class started to spring up where before there was only rich and poor.

Now, the guy's a national hero. He has a 4th grade education, yet he turned their entire country around by just forcing business to play fair, and offering help to his people if they do the right thing.

Raw, greedy capitalism is not the only way. We will strip our planet of everything good if our only drive is profit. Howard Schultz of StarBucks was on Piers Morgan's show recently talking about "Moral Capitalism." His basic premise was that the profit motive is not enough, we have to think about taking care of people at the same time.

Re: GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off'

jkhoffman — Thu, 24 May 2012 01:51:10 -0000

Too bad these little things called facts contradict nearly everything you wrote.

Go to Google and search for "national debt by president". You'll see that, historically, our national debt fares much better when Democrats are in charge.

Every time in recent history that a Republican has taken control it's been an absolute disaster.

Raegan? Please - "trickle down economics" did not create prosperity, it created the mess we now find ourselves in. Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. did no better.

You can't argue history, you can just choose to ignore it - which you obviously do.

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:29:42 -0000

No, your issue is that you have Cognitive Disonance.

Confronted by evidence which contradicts their values or beliefs, a person is forced to make an uncomfortable choice:

1) To hold to their belief and disregard the data they have been presented with or

2) To modify their beliefs and risk having to re-evaluate their world view, their choices and their character.

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:26:13 -0000

The cost of Bush's policies (2001 - 2009): $5.1 trillion.
The cost of Obama's policies (2009 - 2017 projected): $983 billion.

Yes, they both added to the deficit, but you can't honestly argue that Obama is worse than bush.

Man, the more I read of your comments it's like you live in a world with no concept of truth. Do you ever use this thing called the Internet to, I dunno, Google some facts?

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:39:01 -0000

And you, sir, are ignorant of historical fact.

The U.S. had a very serious problem with debt at one time in the past. The Truman (D) and Eisenhower (R) administration solved it, quite effectively. Do a quick Google search for "truman eisenhower debt" and study how they did it.

When you're done, please tell me (1) if Obama tried to do something similar today, do you think it would pass the House & Senate, and (2) why you continue to argue against doing the very things that worked for our country in the past and lead to the prosperity we had not so long ago.

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:30:41 -0000

Maybe, just maybe, they tried adding tax increases because history says that's how you get out of debt.

Go to Google and search for "truman debt". While you're at it, Google for "national debt by president" and notice how the national debt did not start going up until Raegan cut taxes with the whole "trickle down" idea - an idea that created a huge short-term boom followed by long-term economic disaster that we're now suffering the consequences of.

Seriously, grif, educate yourself. Look at objective data. Look at history.

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:26:05 -0000

He inherited the deficits and, if he had attempted to pass anything along the lines of what Truman and Eisenhower did to solve this problem before, the Republicans would just filibuster it. You can't seriously say he had a real chance at fixing the deficit.

The credit downgrade? Are you delusional? It was the Republicans that brought us to the brink of that cliff and caused the downgrade.

Record high unemployment? Again, you're talking as if all he had to do was come up with a solution, suggest it to the House & Senate, and boom... problem solved. This House & Senate is in grid-lock, man... HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING! NO ONE COULD, with the current state of politics!

Record foreclosures? Man, that train left the station long before he took office.

Nearly every other country's economy in the Western world is shrinking right now. We grew 2.5% last year. That's not a lot, but it's better than everyone else. The only country doing any better right now is Brazil, which grew at 7%.

I'm an Independent. I grew up watching Spock on Star Trek, and value the power of logic. I am not an Obama fan-boy, but I haven't heard a lot of credible attacks on his record, either.

With the benefit of hindsight, it should be easy for you to give even one example of something he could have done differently, something that the House & Senate would've passed, that would've made things better than they are.

I'm listening with an open mind. Hit me with a real, logical argument that doesn't ignore history.

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:31:15 -0000

@grif - Again, facts please.

Re: Your top election issues of 2012

jkhoffman — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:30:06 -0000

What dismal record? Facts, please.