The live show MythBusters: Behind the Myths, starring Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, co-hosts of the Emmy-nominated Discovery series "MythBusters," returns to the The Bushnell's Mortensen Hall for one night only on Wednesday, December 3 at 7:30 p.m. Tickets are on sale now. The show promises to be an outrageous evening of entertainment featuring brand new onstage experiments, behind-the-scenes stories and some of your all-time favorites. A new immersive video experience will keep you bolted to your seat.
MythBusters: Behind the Myths brings you face-to-face with the curious world of Jamie and Adam as the duo matches wits on stage with each other and members of the audience. The show played a first sold out date at The Bushnell in March 2012. Tickets for Mythbusters: Behind the Myths are available at The Bushnell box office, 166 Capitol Avenue in Hartford, by phone at 860-987-5900, and online at bushnell.org.
One of the most highly regarded and watched series on the Discovery Channel, "MythBusters" is now in its twelfth season. Co-hosted by Hyneman and Savage, the show mixes scientific method with gleeful curiosity and plain old- fashioned ingenuity to create its own signature style of explosive experimentation - and the supporting or de-bunking of urban myths that we live with day to day.
Adam and Jamie have become spokespersons at large for applying science to real life - most recently as hosts of the Discovery Channel special ""iGenius: How Steve Jobs Changed the World," and have appeared on numerous shows including "Late Show with David Letterman," "Good Morning America," "The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson," "The Colbert Report," NPR's "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition," "Countdown with Keith Olberman," and many more. They were invited to participate in Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Fear and/or Sanity and have received the Young Artist Award for inspiring young people in the interest of science. The MythBusters have been invited to participate on a panel at Comic-Con, where their appearances have sold-out four years running.
Adam and Jamie serve as guest editors for Popular Mechanics and were featured on the cover of the September 2009 issue. That same year, they were inducted as honorary members into Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. They are Honorary Lifetime Members of the California Science Teachers Association and were named Honorary Engineers and Honorary Members of the Francis Crowe Society at the University of Maine. Both Hyneman and Savage were given honorary Doctorates at the University of Twente in the Netherlands for their efforts at popularization of science.
Adam and Jamie produced and starred in an H1N1 Public Service Announcement for the White House, and were chosen by the President to retest the Archimedes legend using 500 schoolchildren as surrogate soldiers.
They appeared as themselves in the movie Darwin Awards and have made several cameos on other TV shows, including CSI. And In 2010, Hyneman and Savage received the Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism from the Harvard Secular Society.
Jamie Hyneman is the owner of M5 Industries, an effects company specializing in problematic custom builds. Besides serving as headquarters of "MythBusters," M5 continues to work on various research & development projects for private clients.
After trying his hand at careers as various as librarian at the United Nations in Geneva to running a diving and sailing charter business in the Caribbean, Hyneman began his career in show business as special effects shop assistant in New York and later in San Francisco as a crew member on films including "Robocop," "Arachnophobia" and "Naked Lunch."
While managing Colossal Pictures' model shop in San Francisco, Hyneman was given the opportunity to take over - and M5 Industries was born.
Hyneman graduated from Indiana University with a degree in Russian. He has received an honorary engineering degree from the University of Maine as well as an honorary doctorate of engineering from Villanova University, with whom he has an ongoing collaborative relationship to help develop new safety concepts for the military. He is the holder of several patents and the winner of numerous industry awards.
No other proof gives more convincing power to a company’s capability than the good word people put in on their behalf. Unsolicited or not, positive feedback for the good work done by someone is like refreshing rain after a long drought.
When people do their job well in spite of the difficulties encountered, the value of their work is prized well by those who have the same dedication to their own work. And such people pay good money for good service. From the smallest party favour which could be as simple and cheap as a ribbon around a candle to the most expensive cake, one can always see the amount of work put into making it. We all feel a sense of joy and inspiration in something that is a product of both pure creativity and love. But the pinnacle of such commitment to excellence is the expression of satisfaction coming from people who appreciate the work done.
Testimonials are a sign of that human recognition for the striving for excellence. It is not merely a simple thanksgiving in compliance to a social or religious norm. It is a symbol of our common striving for perfection in all that we do. Even the cave men must have done implements that made them worthy craft-makers or even accomplished inventors in their own rights. The fact that they were able to make beautiful paintings and efficient tools is quite impressive to many modern artists and engineers. What more with the pyramid builders?
It is not surprising that Koyal group discount should highlight the testimonials given by its many customers. It is not self-praise; far from it. Neither is it lifting their own worth for all to see. It is, in fact, recognizing the truth that people see excellence as it is and appreciating it by becoming part of it and acknowledging the joy they derived from doing so.
It is obvious that Koyal group sale have attained a level of excellence that is known worldwide. Its webpage is by itself a testimonial of that fact.
Hoe de financiële Elite Con ons in willen het verkeerde ding
Concurrerende of zelfregulerende markteconomieën bevorderen dynamische creatieve destructie en wedergeboorte — geleid door de behoeften van mensen, wensen en verlangens, dus goed leiding economische vooruitgang. Historisch, concurrerende markteconomieën zijn een relatief nieuwe economisch systeem, en terwijl zeer productief zijn geweest, ze zijn niet zelfvoorzienend, onstabiel zijn en vereisen aanzienlijke overheidssteun en verordening om goed te functioneren.
Zelfregulerende markteconomieën zijn echter beter dan andere politiek-economische systemen — zoals dictatoriale fascisme of autocratische communisme — echter de Braziliaanse hen kunt verwaarlozen.
Geschiedenis van markteconomieën
Markteconomieën zijn onbestaand tijdens primitieve tijden, en zelfs tijdens de feodale tijden, markten handel van lokale goederen en blijven klein, met geen neiging om te groeien. Externe buitenlandse markten dragen alleen speciale items — zoals specerijen, gezouten vis en wijn. Buitenlandse handel begint niet in feodale samenlevingen, tussen individuen, maar is alleen gesanctioneerd door burgerleiders — tussen hele gemeenschappen.
Feodale tijden vermengen markten voor lokale communautaire goederen niet met de markten voor goederen die afkomstig zijn uit de verte. Lokale en externe buitenlandse markten verschillen in grootte, herkomst en functie — zijn strikt gescheiden, en geen van beide markt is toegelaten tot het platteland.
Feodale maatschappij overgangen in de mercantile samenleving van de 16e tot eind 18e eeuw, waar de staat de economische systeem monopoliseert, ten behoeve van de staat. Kolonies zijn verboden om de handel met andere landen, en lonen van de werknemers worden beperkt. Mercantilisme bewijst echter verdeeldheid; bevordering van imperialisme, kolonialisme en vele oorlogen tussen de grote mogendheden. Markteconomieën nog moeten komen, en niet zou doen tot na 1790.
Note: a shorter version of this appeared in August 5 print issue of The Weekly Standard released on July 26 and is still available on-line. The author is grateful for the publisher’s permission to reproduce an annotated version here. While I have added links and footnotes that do not appear in the on-line version, the text and figure is reproduced nearly verbatim. Any additions to the substance have been inserted as footnotes.
Let me stipulate that I do not condone fraud in any form. Moreover, I assume all Apothecary readers are law-abiding citizens who would neither commit fraud themselves nor encourage others to do so. My purpose is to inform such readers just how tempting fraud on the Obamacare health insurance exchanges will be in light of the recently announced delays in employer reporting and employer mandates.
There are three types of fraud worth considering, each reflecting different motivations and degrees of risk tolerance among the hypothetical individuals considered.
Low-income, full-time worker in a large firm offering health coverage.
Mike’s situation: Let’s start with Mistreated Mike, a $14.00-per-hour janitor in a 200-person law firm already offering health coverage. He works 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, making his total wage income $28,000. At 116 percent of the federal poverty level, it’s tough to provide for his stay-at-home spouse caring for two toddlers, but he gets $6,026 in Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that helps out. Mike’s proud that he’s managed to provide health insurance for his family for years, but it’s expensive. For 2014, he’s selected the most affordable plan his company offers, but he’s crossing his fingers that his family’s out-of-pocket spending won’t reach the average level expected for those who select such a plan: $5,000. Mike’s employer pays much of the $14,100 family premium and fortunately has set up a Section 125 plan so that every penny of Mike’s $3,241 contribution is tax-deductible. Still, that’s a hefty 11.6 percent of his wage income, which might make it appear that Mike’s coverage meets Obama-care’s definition of “unaffordable.” In that case, he would qualify for subsidized coverage on the exchange. Unfortunately, exchange eligibility is restricted to those whose cost for “self-only” coverage under their employer plan exceeds 9.5 percent of household income, and Mike has family coverage. Since Mike’s share of a “self-only” premium would be only 4.9 percent of his income, he is not legally permitted to buy subsidized coverage through the exchange.
But Mike realizes that he is, in effect, also paying the employer’s share of his premium in reduced wages.. How? He has a twin brother doing the same work as a janitor for a neighboring law firm of the same size. However, because that firm consists only of a few high-paid partners and associates, along with an army of paralegals and legal assistants, it has decided to drop its health benefits in 2014. To replace the lost benefit, the company has already announced it will instead pay his brother about $8,000 more a year to do the identical job.
 Mike’s motivation: Here’s what frosts Mike. His brother will get not only a much higher cash wage in 2014, but also a “Silver” health plan comparable to Mike’s, paid for with $15,616 worth of taxpayer-financed exchange subsidies! (A Silver plan, under the Affordable Care Act, covers 70 percent of a typical plan member’s expenses. In addition to the subsidy to pay the premium, someone at the income level of Mike’s brother will also receive a cost-sharing subsidy to raise the coverage from 70 to 94 percent of his health spending.) After deducting all taxes and health expenses, Mike’s net income is expected to be $26,884, whereas his brother’s will be $33,350. Mike does not live in one of the 24 states moving forward with Medicaid expansion, so his only prospect for subsidized coverage is through the exchange. In short, Mike can boost his cash income considerably if he can get exchange-subsidized coverage.
The way Mike sees it, Uncle Sam is levying a substantial tax on him simply for working for a large employer that responsibly offers health benefits. How is that fair? Mike appreciates that by not taxing his health benefits Uncle Sam is giving him roughly a 10 percent discount on all his health spending. He just can’t figure out why his brother is getting an 82 percent discount, especially now that his brother’s wages are substantially higher than Mike’s.
Given how well-informed Mike is, it won’t surprise you to learn that he remembers all the sordid backroom deals that were required to secure votes for Obamacare—the “Louisiana Purchase,” “Gator Aid,” the “Cornhusker Kickback,” and a deal with big hospitals, among others. And he’s been appalled by the flagrant favoritism accorded certain political groups such as unions and public employees in Obamacare’s rollout to date. Not surprisingly, the entire law is feeling to Mike like an organized kleptocracy—with vast amounts of taxpayer resources redistributed in a manner no one could possibly claim is fair. Mike has concluded that a government that gives his higher-wage brother a $15,616 subsidy for identical coverage clearly is not watching out for him.
He’s decided to do what it takes to tip a very unlevel playing field back in his own favor.
Mike’s calculation: The administration’s ineptitude in rolling out Obama-care has given Mike a lucky break. In 2014, his employer may not be reporting to the exchange any details about the coverage offered him at work. The final rule on premium tax-credit eligibility verification requires that any applicant for premium tax credits attest to the exchange whether he or she has employer coverage, its cost, and extent.
For the lowest-cost plan that meets the minimum value standard offered only to the employee (don’t include family plans):
a. How much would the employee have to pay in premiums for this plan? $________
b. How often?
[ ] Weekly
[ ] Every 2 weeks
[ ] Twice a month
[ ] Quarterly
[ ] Yearly
Even though reporting to the exchanges has been delayed one year, all employers subject to the minimum-wage laws are required to send a notice to all employees by October 1, 2013. Also, the plan affordability/minimum-value information still must be provided.
What are the risks? Let’s be clear: There are potentially steep penalties—up to $250,000—for committing fraud but not for making an honest mistake. According to legal site Nolo.com: “Although auditors are trained to look for fraud, they do not routinely suspect it. . . . They will give you the benefit of the doubt most of the time and not go after you for tax fraud if you make an honest mistake.”
Indeed, the IRS flagged nearly five million tax returns for math errors in fiscal year 2011. This is many multiples of the 4,720 criminal prosecutions initiated by the IRS that year. Since the exchange will be electronically cross-checking income information against information it gets from tax filings, Social Security data, and current wages, Mike would be safest by honestly reporting his income to the penny and instead fudging the cost of coverage so that his company plan seems to fail the affordability test.
 Depending on how Mike’s employer reports this premium information to him (i.e., as a weekly, monthly, or yearly amount), he can simply make a convenient mistake. $2,660 a year is the magic number, i.e., greater than 9.5 percent of his income. So he needs to convince the exchange that his share of the premium exceeds this amount. If, say, his employer reports the actual employee-only premium as $26.54 weekly, he could report $56.54 as the amount the employee has to pay. This is not a flagrantly suspicious amount. Moreover, if later challenged, Mike could chalk it up to sloppy handwriting (“Oh, that’s a 2, not a 5”) or an inadvertent transcribing error.
Will Mike get caught? According to Timothy Jost at the HealthAffairs blog,
If the exchange finds information incompatible with the applicant’s attestation, it will ask the applicant to provide evidence to resolve the inconsistency. In most instances, however, there will be no electronic data available to confirm the attestation. In these cases, the exchange will select a statistically significant random sample of cases in which it only has the attestation and, after notice to the applicant, contact the employer to verify the information. If the employer provides information incompatible with the applicant’s claims, the exchange will ask for further proof. In cases where the employer does not respond, however, or that are not part of the random sample, the exchange will rely on the applicant’s attestation .The rule does not articulate what is meant by “statistically significant random sample of cases.” However, we can get a rough idea from the EITC program, where the IRS in fiscal year 2011 audited 2.2 percent of returns claiming such credits. Thus, Mike’s odds of getting caught through the random sample are pretty slim; if he is unlucky enough to be caught, he essentially will be given advance notice that they suspect something and an opportunity to come clean.
Potentially, there is another way Mike could get caught. Both the exchange and the IRS are required (even in 2014) to notify employers every time one of their employees receives premium tax credits. After 2014, employers will be liable for a penalty if one of their employees gets subsidized coverage on the exchange. But in 2014, the question is what Mike’s employer will do when notification is sent that he has obtained subsidized exchange coverage.
Quite likely, nothing at all. After all, what is the employer’s incentive to respond to this notice? No adverse consequence would arise from ignoring it. Hypothetically, a highly diligent human resource employee with ethical objections to claiming a tax benefit improperly might elect to blow the whistle. But an employee that hyper-aware presumably also would recognize the gross inequity of the entire employer-mandate structure and the fact that Uncle Sam is effectively imposing a tax on workers in large firms, even as it provides massive subsidies to their equivalently compensated counterparts at large firms that “pay” rather than “play”—i.e., decide that paying the penalty is cheaper than providing health benefits. All things considered, it seems likely either that Mike’s transgression will be ignored or that he will have the same opportunity to rectify his “inadvertent” error.- The Koyal Group