Time Lapse View of Manhattan

Time lapse view of Manhattan

Miss Teen USA Defies Sextortion Plot

miss teen usa

Placing more of our gadgets on the web provides many conveniences. Unfortunately they also make it easier for hackers to invade our privacy. This ranges from taking control of devices ranging from  smart cars to baby monitors. Cassidy Wolf, Miss Teen USA, was the target of a sextortion plot in which hackers took nude photos of her over the webcam on her laptop computer and threatened to post them on line. Rather than giving into this extortion, Wolf has been going on television publicizing this problem, hopefully protecting others from the same invasions of their privacy:

Recently crowned Miss Teen USA Cassidy Wolf has been making the rounds on news programs talking not only about her beauty pageant win but something far more insidious. It seems that before being crowned, a hacker took control of the 19-year old’s webcam and attempted to blackmail her.

Wolf told TODAY.com that she first became aware of the intrusion four months ago, when Facebook warned her of an attempted login in a different state. This was quickly followed by an email from the hacker, claiming to have nude photos of Wolf taken with her webcam. Wolf was in high school at the time.

In interviews, Wolf said that she had no idea that she was being watched and that the light on her webcam was never lit.

Going on television should help publicize a problem which so far has obtained attention primarily on tech sites which most people do not read. The FBI is investigating this case.

Update: The person responsible for this extortion has been apprehended by the FBI.

Posted in Gadgets. No Comments »

A Perfect Plan For Republican Debates

The Republican National Committee has voted to ban CNN and NBC from covering their debates if they go ahead with planned shows about Hillary Clinton. Obviously the Republicans feel more comfortable on Fox, with talk that the debates might be moderated by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh in place of journalists.

This sounds like a good idea to me. Let the Republicans stay in their bubble. There really isn’t much difference between the pseudo-journalists at Fox and the conservative talking heads. Put them in a room together and who knows what sort of bat-shit crazy things they will all start talking about. Just picture it: “Any of you believe in evolution, raise your hand (snickers). Believe in global warming? What do you plan to do to keep minorities out of the country (and keep women and blacks in their place)?”

Quote of the Day

“Happy birthday to President Obama! He turned 52 over the weekend. You can see he is getting a little grayer. In fact, they are starting to call him ‘The Silver Fox.’ That’s because most of the silver in his hair was caused by Fox.” –Jay Leno

Changing Insurance or Physicians Under The Affordable Care Act

We are seeing the hypocrisy of conservatives once again regarding the Affordable Care Act. While this was being considered in Congress, Republicans thought they could win debating points by demanding that federal employees be changed from their current system to receiving insurance through the exchanges. The Democrats called their bluff as, in reality, the idea behind  Obamacare  is to give  all Americans access to insurance coverage comparable to what federal employees had.

Of course when you have a good thing going, it is to be expected that you anyone would be wary of any change. It comes as no surprise that virtually all federal workers polled would prefer not to change their current system. If I was in their position, I certainly would say to maintain the status quo as opposed to risking any change. Conservatives sites are now trying to use this as an argument against the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that this is an aspect of the law pushed by Republicans. This is also in no way evidence that the coverage will be any worse than the current coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. It would be more interesting to see if a few years for now federal employees have seen a deterioration in their health care coverage.

Of course the effects on federal employees is a minor portion of the law, and again one pushed by Republicans. The important change brought about by the Affordable Care Act is that those purchasing insurance in the individual market, who often do not currently have any access to affordable care, will be able to select from a variety of choices just as federal employees have been able to.

Federal employees very will may wind up with the same insurance plan they have now, should they desire to, provided that their current insurance company provides coverage through the exchange. Some federal employees might have to change insurance plans, but they should still be able to get comparable coverage, and in most cases continue to see their current doctor. Some might wind up changing to a plan which their doctor doesn’t participate in and have to change doctors. This has led back to the controversy over whether individuals will be able to keep their own doctor under Obamacare.

Obama made a simple response to this controversy which is generally true but there are exceptions when saying that people will be able to keep their current doctor under the Affordable Care Act. This is not one hundred percent true as no plan, and certainly not the status quo, could ever guarantee this short of a totally government run plan. The underlying question at the time was whether Obama was proposing a government-run plan which would tell people which doctors they could see. In this context Obama was correct. The Affordable Care Act provides individuals with choices–more choices than they have now–and makes it easier for people to continue to see their own doctor. Nothing in the plan mandates that anyone change doctors.

On the other hand, this could not be guaranteed in every case as people change insurance plans and doctors are free to decide which plans we participate in. Every January I lose a number of patients because they have changed to plans I do not accept. In some cases this is due to a patient making a change without realizing it, and sometimes they can still reverse the change. More often it is due to their employer changing insurance coverage and the employee has no choice. Sometimes it is due to changing jobs. In addition, it is not that uncommon for patients to stop seeing me because they lose their job and lose insurance coverage.

There are a variety of reasons why physicians might not accept a plan. Sometimes it is because of poor payment. Other times it is because of the paperwork involved. With some plans there is no issue of being considered part of the plan, or the simple act of seeing a patient in a plan leads to the plan considering me to be participating. In other cases paperwork needs to be done. When I am often drowning in paperwork, and have more people than I can handle requesting to be new patients, I might not bother to fill out an application for a plan which doesn’t cover a significant number of people in the area.

The Affordable Care Act cannot guarantee that someone can always see their current physician should they change to a plan which their physician does not accept. It will decrease the risk of being forced to change physicians by making it less likely that individuals will lose their insurance coverage, by reducing the connection between coverage and current employer, and by providing more choices in insurance plans. Individuals should always check with their physician’s office before changing insurance plans if concerned about whether they might have to change doctors.

This does not mean that everything will be perfect under the Affordable Care Act. As I have pointed out several times before, adjustments in a law of this size are still needed, and in the past would have occurred if not for Congressional Republicans not wanting to bother with actual legislation, while having plenty of time to vote forty times to revoke the law. One problem, which might influence access to care is that people who receive subsidized care through the exchanges have a three month grace period before they are removed from a plan, but insurance companies will only be required to pay claims for the first month. If physicians wind up providing a significant amount of unreimbursed care due to this problem, many might be reluctant to take such patients. On the other hand, there is a push to improve computerized access to up to date insurance information. This problem could be resolved if we have easy access to information as to whether a patient falls into this category, allowing physicians to request payment up front if they have not paid their premiums. This also might provide incentive for these individuals to get their premiums paid.

Consistency In Their Bigotry

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX) told his  constituents on Saturday in his district that Republicans have the votes in the House to impeach President Barack Obama and that they should have looked into his eligibility to be president. PoliticusUSA responds that “Republicans Want To Impeach Obama For the Crime of Being President While Black.”

Well, sure that makes sense from their perspective. If these people don’t think that blacks should be allowed to sit at the same lunch counter as whites, and that they should only be allowed to sit in the back of the bus, how can we expect them to think it is ok for Obama to be president?

In related news, Donald Trump continues to push the Birther nonsense as he acts like a contender for the 2016 Republican nomination.

Eric Holder Deescalates The Drug War

Changes in government policy often occur far too slowly. One of the reasons I supported Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008 was suggestions that he might be willing to pull back on the drug war, as well as ending the war in Iraq. The first term was very disappointing with regards to drug policy. Today we finally saw signs that, while far less than I would like to see, the Obama administration is moving in the right direction. From The New York Times:

In a major shift in criminal justice policy, the Obama administration moved on Monday to ease overcrowding in federal prisons by ordering prosecutors to omit listing quantities of illegal substances in indictments for low-level drug cases, sidestepping federal laws that impose strict mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., in a speech at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco on Monday, announced the new policy as one of several steps intended to curb soaring taxpayer spending on prisons and help correct what he regards as unfairness in the justice system, according to his prepared remarks.

Saying that “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason,” Mr. Holder justified his policy push in both moral and economic terms.

“Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable,” Mr. Holder’s speech said. “It imposes a significant economic burden — totaling $80 billion in 2010 alone — and it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate.”

This is a long way from what I would like to see, but much closer to what I thought might plausible occur under Obama. Hopefully this will be followed by an end to the raids of medical marijuana facilities, and ideally a move towards either decriminalization or legalization. There is hope that a coalition between Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans might also bring about long term legislative change, which is preferable over a decision from one administration to selectively avoid longer sentences. It is even the fiscally responsible thing to do.

We have seen how quickly the attitude towards restrictions on marriage equality is changing. Attitudes on drug laws might be the next to change.

SciFi Weekend: The 12th Doctor; The Next Batman; SHIELD And The Avengers; Captain America; Star Wars; Star Trek; Homeland; Dexter; The White Queen; Piracy

Last week white smoke emerged from the BBC and soon afterwards Peter Capaldi was introduced as the 12th Doctor on a show simulcast in the U.K., the United States, Canada, and Australia (video above). BBC America has a run down on the news coverage. The Guardian introduces Capaldi to non-Brits.

Every time there is a regeneration, there is speculation that the next Doctor might not someone other than a white male. Neil Gaiman claims that a black actor has turned down the role. Steven Moffat, Matt Smith, and Jenna Coleman discussed the transition in this interview. An excerpt:

Is writing that final story for Matt Smith’s Doctor the biggest pressure you’ve faced, in doing this show?

MOFFAT:  The biggest pressure will always be introducing a new Doctor.  And I can’t imagine it will ever be tougher than with “The Eleventh Hour” because everything changed.  It’s not an ideal way to run television.  It really isn’t.  That was mad.  All the execs left, the producer left, and all the stars left.  You think, “Christ, how do you get away with that?!”  We’re not in that situation this time, and it’s good that we’re not.  People say, “It must have been great and exciting and marvelous that you had all that new stuff,” but not really.  But, we got away with it.  I just remember thinking, “Are people going to buy that this is the same show, when it clearly is not?”

Do you wish that you could just introduce the new Doctor via the show, when he finally shows up?

MOFFAT:  I’d love to, but that’s physically impossible.  It was Russell’s plan not to tell anyone that Chris [Eccleston] was going to change in the last episode, but it leaked after one week.  I wish it were possible.   The fact is that those actors’ agents have to say that they’re available.  They have to take jobs.  It’s going to leak, so you have to take command of that story.  It’s annoying.  I’d far rather not tell anybody anything, seriously.  If you’re telling a joke, you don’t want anybody telling the punchline before you get to the end.  Sadly, I don’t think it’s possible now.  Everybody wanders around with cameras now.  A few years ago, no one had a camera on them.  Now, every little human being goes around with a camera on their phone.  How am I going to keep secrets with that?!  It’s tough.  It can be irritating, but what can you do?

Moffat started with a new cast with both Matt Smith and Karen Gillan. With Jenna Coleman still being relatively new to the series, the show with Peter Capaldi and Jenna Coleman will have a different feel than during most of Moffat’s tenure with Matt Smith and the Ponds.

Now that we know who will play the next Doctor, the next major succession is who will play Batman when he appears in the next Superman movie. Rumor has it that Orlando Bloom is the leading contender.

agents-of-shield-tv-show-teaser

Joss Whedon discussed synergy between Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the universe of The Avengers:

Speaking at the recent TCAs, Whedon said fans will spot some synergy in the run-up to Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Thor: The Dark World. “There will be as much as we can allow,” he said. “We’re still working that out. It’s a fun opportunity, but it’s not the reason for the show. It’s not an Easter egg farm, we want people to come back.”

The pilot kicks off with Angel alumnus J August Richards as an “unregistered gifted” that the SHIELD agents must track down. Don’t expect a superhero-of-the-week show, though, “There could be a device, a mystery,” Whedon continued.

“There’s so many aspects as to what’s happened since everybody in the world found out there’s a superhero team and aliens invaded New York. We want to be able to change it up every week: spy stuff, hero stuff, heartfelt stuff. We want to make sure the humor is there, but every week, you get something that feels a little bit different.”

Disney has also released a full synopsis for Captain America: The Winter Soldier

After the cataclysmic events in New York with The Avengers, Marvel’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier finds Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, living quietly in Washington, D.C. and trying to adjust to the modern world. But when a S.H.I.E.L.D. colleague comes under attack, Steve becomes embroiled in a web of intrigue that threatens to put the world at risk.

Joining forces with the Black Widow, Captain America struggles to expose the ever-widening conspiracy while fighting off professional assassins sent to silence him at every turn. When the full scope of the villainous plot is revealed, Captain America and the Black Widow enlist the help of a new ally, the Falcon. However, they soon find themselves up against an unexpected and formidable enemy—the Winter Soldier.

These Avengers-themed sex toys will definitely never be sold at the many stores around the Disney theme parks, even should the Avengers characters be moved from Universal to WDW in the future.

ABC is in talks to bring another genre show to television–a live action Star Wars show. I really hope this happens, not because I care whether there is a weekly Star Wars show but because maybe this would lead CBS (who appears to own the rights, but it is somewhat murky) to counter by returning Star Trek to television. Star Trek worked far better as a weekly series than intermittent movies which are forced by market demands to be big action movies.

After Disney purchased the rights to Star Wars, there was talk of expanding the Star Wars presence at the Disney’s Hollywood Studios theme park. I expressed skepticism over speculation that they would  get rid of Muppet Vision 3D and the Honey I Shrunk the Kids Playground for this expansion. Earlier in the week I was looking at the refurbishment schedule at Walt Disney World and noticed that Muppet Vision 3D is closed August 6 through September 2 for refurbishment. In addition, the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids Playground will be closed September 3 through November 19 for refurbishment. They might not be around forever, but it doesn’t appear likely that they plan to remove them in the near future. As is usually the case at WDW, other areas will also be closed during these times. The most significant is that Spaceship Earth will be closed August 18-24.

mulgrew

On Orange is the New Black, Kate Mulgrew ran the prison kitchen instead of the Starship Voyager. She was interviewed by Vulture, and told about one Star Trek reference thrown into the show:

At one point Natasha Lyonne has a line, “I thought I was your Spock.”
Yes, they threw that in. I’m sure they’ll do some more of that. I think that was intentional and very clever!

Speaking of Star Trek, Blastr describes how the show was saved by Lucille Ball.

In 1965, Roddenberry got a pilot order from NBC and produced the original Star Trek pilot “The Cage.” It was rejected by the network, reportedly because it was “too cerebral,” and for most shows that’s where the story would have ended. Luckily for Roddenberry, he had Ball on his side. The story goes that she still thought the Star Trek idea had legs, and used her considerable influence in television to push for NBC to give Roddenberry a second chance. The network made the exceedingly rare move of ordering a second pilot from Roddenberry, who overhauled almost the entire cast of characters from “The Cage” and eventually produced “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” That pilot was accepted, the show was given a series order, and the rest is history.

Damian Louis interviewed about his role on Homeland in the video above.

Anna Torv returns to television following Fringe in a show expected to air on HBO next year. Torv will play a lesbian yoga instructor.

Yvonne Strahovski as Hannah McKay (Season 7, episode 6) - Photo: Randy Tepper/Showtime - Photo ID: dexter_706_0087

We don’t know yet how Dexter will end but executive producer Sara Colleton realizes that she can’t make everyone happy.

“This has been the ending that we have talked about for years,” she said. “So to us, it feels right for our show and how we feel about it. I hope fans will think it’s right [too].”

The exec conceded that there is no way to make “everybody happy” with the conclusion of the Michael C Hall series.

“At the end of the day, we know that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t,” she said. “There will be people who hate it, but we can’t try to anticipate that or put it through the lens of any other show’s finale – because that was another show.

“This is our show. This is Dexter.”

It is hard to believe that things will end well for Dexter Morgan. Multiple routes to doom have arisen this season. So far this has included Dr. Vogel and Deb when she is in a crazy mood. Last week episode showed two additional threats. He has decided he wants to be a mentor to Zach Hamilton, but Zach appears unhinged enough to turn on Dexter. Then there was the return of Hannah McKay.

Having a hard time waiting until Game of Thrones returns? The White Queen on Starz might help.

Piracy drops when there are legal ways to view shows. It comes as no surprise that piracy has spiked in response to the Time Warner cable blackout of CBS.

Sarah Palin, Howard Dean, and Liberal Bloggers All Making Mistakes In Discussing the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board

Ever since Howard Dean had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for elimination of the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board, conservative sites have been using this to claim, as Investors Business Daily has, that Sarah Palin was right about death panels. The problem with their argument is that Howard Dean got some of the facts wrong, and Palin’s argument remains a stretch. However, liberal bloggers also continued to make mistakes in discussing the IPAB in rebuttals to Dean. While Dean was wrong in calling for its abolition, there were problems in the originator Senate version of the Affordable Care Act which should be fixed.

Howard Dean is wrong in claiming that the IPAB will not cut costs. There is no question that a board with the power to change how Medicare operates is capable of cutting costs. Dean is misleading in writing, “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the IPAB, in its current form, won’t save a single dime before 2021.” The reason for this is not that it cannot cut costs, but that the cost cutting regulations do not become effective until Medicare costs raise above a certain point, which the CBO does not project will happen until 2022. While the IPAB’s rulings only directly affect Medicare, it is common for private plans to mirror changes in Medicare, but paying at a higher rate.

The idea behind the IPAB is to have medical experts make proposals for cost cutting in Medicare to take this out of the political process. On paper the board is not allowed to ration care, but by itself this argument in its defense is bogus. Howard Dean does have a point here. Rationing is not well defined in the legislation. Any changes in how Medicare reimburses physicians, either in terms of dollar amounts or, as is most likely to occur, the nature of the payment system, will lead to reduced spending in some areas and could be considered rationing. The important point here is that it is not necessarily the IPAB which might ration care. If you consider this to be rationing, the same could be said about any Congressional changes in Medicare reimbursement. The question then becomes whether it is better for Congress or for a panel of experts to decide where spending cuts should occur.

From this perspective, the IPAB is a good idea and should not be abolished. However, there are two structural problems which should be revised.

The first is trying to legislate Medicare cuts in the future. With an aging population and unknown new technology, we cannot predict today how much we should spend on Medicare after 2021. There obviously needs to be some limit on costs, but this is a decision which should be made by Congress at the time. We already have seen the problems with attempts to legislate automatic decreases in Medicare payment with the Sustainable Growth Rate. Using this flawed plan, we run into the situation where the automatic formula would reduce Medicare payments to a level where physicians simply would not be able to afford to treat Medicare patients. Now pretty much every year, and sometimes more often, Congress has to intervene and overrule the cuts called for with the Sustainable Growth Rate. The current legislation creates similar problems.

The second problem is that the IPAB has insufficient accountability. It makes sense to have decisions made outside of the current legislative process, analogous to an independent panel making recommendations for military base closings. Many liberal bloggers defending the IPAB have used this analogy, but many incorrect believe that, like the military base recommendations, the decisions of the IPAB will be subject to an up or down vote by Congress. The portions of the Affordable Care Act which create the IPAB make it virtually impossible that Congress will be able to override their rulings. On the other hand, I have read speculation that Congress might be able to pass supplemental spending bills to replace things cut by the IPAB, comparable to how they currently override the cuts which would come from the Sustainable Growth Rate. However, this would not solve the problem should the IPAB make structural changes in Medicare which lead to physicians not being willing to accept Medicare patients.

The IPAB as was passed in the Senate version of health care reform legislation should be maintained but reformed so that an up or down vote by Congress is required to accept their recommendations, and so that cuts are not automatically required. While many Democrats now feel compelled to defend this aspect of the law as passed (largely in response to the ridiculous hyperbole coming from the right in opposition), we must keep in mind that the Senate version was passed only because of the Democrats losing a super majority in the Senate, preventing the normal process of the Senate passing a final bill following reconciliation with the superior House bill. Changes should be made, but not repeal of this or the entire bill as Republicans are calling for. Unfortunately, the Republican refusal to engage in the normal legislative process will probably make fixing the problems in the Affordable Care Act unlikely to occur in Congress.

Not All Drones Are Bad

This story about  drones being used to deliver beer in South Africa provides a good example about the dangers of generalization, such as believing all drones are bad:

Revellers at a South African outdoor rock festival no longer need to queue to slake their thirst — a flying robot will drop them beer by parachute.

After clients place an order using a smartphone app, a drone zooms 15 metres (50 feet) above the heads of the festival-goers to make the delivery.

Carel Hoffmann, director of the Oppikoppi festival held on a dusty farm in the country’s northern Limpopo province, said the app registers the position of users using the GPS satellite chips on their phones.

“The delivery guys have a calibrated delivery drone. They send it to the GPS position and drops it with a parachute,” he explained.

Even Rand Paul has tweeted that he’s not against all drones in response to this story. Alcohol appears to be the common denominator when Paul considers the use of drones, such as with his previous statement in support of using drones against someone robbing a liquor store: “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” Paul is also having difficulty in using numbers and coherently discussing economic issues.