Slashdot Mirror

As has been pointed out by others the Romans were not atheists. In fact throughout the Roman empires lifetime there was an abundance of religions to chose from. Atheism is a fairly new phenomenon. The first individuals to self-identify as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.

As to why the Romans prosecuted Christians in particular one of these German scholars may have an explanation:

Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz in Germany has spent 15 years studying ancient apocalyptic prophecies. He has learned that in the poor districts of Rome, Christians were circulating vengeful texts predicting that a raging inferno would reduce the city to ashes. "In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome." (Source: PBS

Christians may not have burnt down Rome but they sure set themselves up as the perfect fall guys.

People get a fscking clue! Here is good insight to the current financial crises. I agree that the government should not be involved. But, greedy people are greedy people. They will stop at nothing to make more money. If the government does not do something than who will? Watch this show. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/ I always wanted to be in a big depression and waste time in a soup line This is not the only contribution. There was also problems with the way stock tradings were resolved. It wiped out many peoples retirement. I do not have the link at this time. Please waste an hour or two of your time. It may be better spent than /. :-)

A police officer who jokes about beating people and planting evidence does not have the temperment or trustworthiness for the job.

True, but that doesn't stop police departments from hiring their like when they can't find better. They're supposed to screen these jokers out before they get a badge - but that doesn't always happen.

I haven't read the book yet, but I highly recommend the PBS NOVA documentary based on it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/

FYI: Black holes do not suck, either. They're pretty cool.

While temperature measurement of a black hole is bound to be a bit difficult, I'm willing to bet that by almost any measure they are hot rather than cool.

Depends on your definition of hot and cold.

Of course, if you have things falling in, this stuff emits radiation like crazy, but only until it hits the event horizon. In other words, It gets really toasty outside the event horizon, but falls outside our discussion, by virtue of not being the black hole itself.

The event horizon is another story. It's a bit of a discontinuity in a lot of ways. If you assume the "trivial" solution of a nice, non-rotating black hole (the Schwarzschild solution), with nothing falling in, and nothing escaping, then this black hole would be perfectly black, in the literal zero black body radiation sense.

Now, inside the event horizon is a completely different matter. Let me dumbly apply some theory here, and let's assume ideal gas law applies. Since all of the matter is infinitely densely packed in the singularity (even if we assume it actually has some dimension, it would be Planck or smaller, most likely), then if we consider volume to be infinitely close to 0 (lim V->0) with a invariant amount of mass m (the mass of the black hole), then the pressure rises to infinity (lim p->infinity). Temperature is directly proportional to pressure, ergo, the temperature also goes to infinity (lim t->infinity).

Again, I've made some really silly assumptions that don't reflect the real world at all (probably all black holes rotate, ideal gas law isn't relativistic, infinite temperature implies infinite kinetic energy, doesn't consider the possibility of hawking radiation, etc). I did this to simplify the explanation, more than to be correct.

So, depending on how you look at it, a black hole is really both pretty hot shit and really cool!

Alan Alda did a show several years ago on Scientific American Frontiers called "Cybersenses"

The Cybersenses episode highlighted the earlier, 16-electrode device, while talking about (then) new research and other devices in development. The current clinical trial (and BBC article/video) is with a newer, higher-density device.

Just so you know, developing any kind of complex medical device is a MANY-year, MANY-million-dollar undertaking. Requires deep investor pockets and lots of patience...

Alan Alda did a show several years ago on Scientific American Frontiers called "Cybersenses" where he featured a guy who also had an "artificial eye" implanted. It used 64 electrodes (if I remember correctly) and they were working on one that used 1024.

He was able to actually get enough information out of his that he could read letters printed on the wall of the building they were in. He also saw a "bright spot" when they went outside that turned out to be Alan's forehead.

Bill

Cold is an absolute term in that you can have absolute zero. Hot is a relative term in that there is no absolute hot, just degrees. Well maybe not - seems like the Planck temperature at 10^32 Kelvin might be an absolute hot. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html Makes sense given a Planck length and Planck time.

This story reminds me of "Long-Term Capital Management" story back in the late 1990's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

These guys did the EXACT same thing using computer models to predict what funds they should be investing in so that they never have a loss ...

Unfortunately, they were bailed out, but folded in 2000.

http://www.geocities.com/eureka/concourse/8751/jurus/hf100203.htm

There was a PBS special about these guys and the computer models they used.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stockmarket.html

Also PBS' Frontline Inside the Meltdown talks about the causes as well. A short summary: Everyone was speculating on housing. In the past, a bank were careful about mortgages. They had to very careful because they were responsible if the home owner defaulted. They may get the value back if they resold the home after foreclosure; but also they may not.

Then the house speculation of the late 90s and early 2000s happened. People were no longer holding onto homes until the mortgage was paid off. As home prices went up, people were buying and selling them quickly. Banks no longer as careful about the original lender as they sold the mortgages long before foreclosure happened. Banks were not only selling; they were buying mortgages as if they were stocks. In this scenario, everyone wins if the home gets resold at a higher price or equal price to the original loan.

Traditionally also lenders would get mortgages for only homes they could afford. If they couldn't afford it, the banks would not lend the money. But in the housing market, lenders were getting loans for far more than they could afford with the expectation of selling the home before they would get behind on payments.

Now banks aren't entirely stupid. To make sure that they didn't lose money if by chance their current lender defaulted, they would buy credit default swaps (paid every month). Credit Default Swaps are almost an insurance policy against foreclosure. If the lender forecloses, the institution issuing the CDS would pay the bank.

Unlike insurance however, a CDS is completely unregulated. The institution issuing the CDS did not have to be involved at all in any of the mortgages or banking. Joe's Deli could have issued a CDS if someone would buy it. Also there are no rules that say the issuing institution must have X% of the value of the CDS in real assets or what kind of assets the institution must have. The value of the CDS relied solely on the reputation of the issuing institution. Companies like Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman Brothers issued CDS and made billions in profits.

Again everyone made money as long as house prices went up. But booms only last so long. Then the housing market collapsed. Lenders were stuck with homes they couldn't afford and couldn't sell to recuperate. Banks were stuck with massive foreclosures. So they had to invoke their payments with CDS. But companies that issued CDS owed potentially hundreds billions if all the banks called for them. Some of them owed far more than their capital; those that didn't like Bear Stearns had capital but it was widely feared that they didn't. A company like Bear Stearns operates on perceived value as they are an investment house. When they perceived value collapsed; their real value does as well.

The problem started with the sub-prime loans. The corroding effect of them first caused Bear Sterns to go under. The Fed then sent them money through JP Morgan Chase, because they realized that they were also heavily invested in credit default swaps.

Now, a credit default swap is a type of an insurance that when you invest in some company, if it goes bankrupt, you get your money back.

The problem with these credit default swaps is if a large company goes under, now you have to pay a LOT of money to a lot of people. After the bailout of Bear Sterns, this was actualized when AIG started to go under. AIG had issued by far the most amount of credit default swaps.

When Lehman Brother's went under (again caused by bad mortgage loans), Paulson had had enough of bailouts and going against his free market principles, and wanted to send a message to Wall Street that they couldn't expect bailouts.

AIG had issued a lot of the credit default swaps for Lehman Brother's, so now AIG was forced to pay investors billions of dollars that they didn't have in the bank.

We're not out of the woods yet, but it's pretty clear what did happen. The bad mortgages started the ball rolling, but they're far from the only cause of the market meltdown.

I watched Frontline's Inside the Meltdown last night. They have a great timeline of the events. Based on what I had already learned it seems mostly accurate. I may have mixed up a few details as well, so please feel free to correct me.

The problem started with the sub-prime loans. The corroding effect of them first caused Bear Sterns to go under. The Fed then sent them money through JP Morgan Chase, because they realized that they were also heavily invested in credit default swaps.

Now, a credit default swap is a type of an insurance that when you invest in some company, if it goes bankrupt, you get your money back.

The problem with these credit default swaps is if a large company goes under, now you have to pay a LOT of money to a lot of people. After the bailout of Bear Sterns, this was actualized when AIG started to go under. AIG had issued by far the most amount of credit default swaps.

When Lehman Brother's went under (again caused by bad mortgage loans), Paulson had had enough of bailouts and going against his free market principles, and wanted to send a message to Wall Street that they couldn't expect bailouts.

AIG had issued a lot of the credit default swaps for Lehman Brother's, so now AIG was forced to pay investors billions of dollars that they didn't have in the bank.

We're not out of the woods yet, but it's pretty clear what did happen. The bad mortgages started the ball rolling, but they're far from the only cause of the market meltdown.

I watched Frontline's Inside the Meltdown last night. They have a great timeline of the events. Based on what I had already learned it seems mostly accurate. I may have mixed up a few details as well, so please feel free to correct me.

There was already a short segment on Nova about a year ago about epigenetics. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/video/3411/q02-220.html

What about the latest soap opera

What does SOAP or soap have to do with web browsers or musical theatre? People who actually like the romantic serials on daytime TV can get them over the air on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

or miniseries

These get released on DVD more often than not after they've aired.

or news program?

If you actually believe what they say on msnbc, cnn, or foxnews, then just put a .com after it. Besides, US residents within range of a public broadcasting service can still get Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, and NOW over the air.

So unless you're into televised sports, OTA+Netflix+web might fit your needs.

I suspect that the current "global warming" programs have been written with the assumption that global warming is real, and that they have built this "fact" into the programs.

Not so. Global warming results from the basic physics. Your opinions are counterfactual.

Read this blogpost explaining the models

And everyone should read this history of the science behind global warming

... some Nova documentaries. Nothing like spending an hour alongside some of the greatest scientific minds in history to inspire you to learn more.

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, virtually unlimited, and SCALABLE.

None of the "renewable" sources are even close to being scalable.

The nuclear waste problem can be taken care of by using reactors that use up fuel as completely as possible. Even if such reactors are too expensive for now, the amount of radiation released is far less than that of coal and it contained very easily by comparison. Spent fuel can be buried and then dug back up when it is cost effective.

Wasting time and taxpayers money on non-scalable methods is stupid when we have an excellent workable solution already. Give people the permits to build the reactors and the market can take care of this efficiently!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html/

You're right about him being second in command, and I agree that the President of Iran is not powerless, but the Iranian constitution limits the President's powers. The Iranian President is also not in charge of the military. Only the Supreme Leader can wage war.

The President of Iran is really only responsible for setting economic policies.

Here's an older PBS page that outlines the power structure in Iran. While it is somewhat dated, the power structure in Iran hasn't changed since the 1990's.

Basically, Ahmadinejad can make as many threats as he wants, but he cannot carry them out without explicit blessings from the supreme leader, which is not likely to happen.

Actually the UK is an excellent example. Post 1945 the Labour Party tried to build a Keynesian/socialist economy and the Tories largely left it intact when they were in power. Essentially Keynesianism became a consensus which both parties respected. That continued up until 1979, by which point inflation and unemployment were both high, something which Keynesian theory did not predict.

At that point Thatcher won an election and on the advice of the monetarists started to dismantle the system. To some extent the Labour Party respected the new post Keynesian consensus, e.g. by continuing the free marketification of the NHS, passing control of interest rates to an independent Monetary Policy Committee with distinctly monetarist goals.

India is another good example because post independence the Congress Party were keen on the same sorts of ideas as the Labour Party, perhaps worse ones including protectionism. India developed fairly slowly right up until they opened up their economy, at which point they started to take your jobs.

PBS has a good documentary on it

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

All that said, I think a certain amount of Keynesianism or something like it is inevitable to get us out of the shit economically. What I don't agree with is that we let the pendulum swing back so that it becomes the consensus, as it did in the UK between 1945 and 1979.

It turns out that other people have supposed that before.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

Didn't Clinton already give the telcoms billions in "tax cuts" so we'd have bad high width now?

Yes, the last sentence of my post you quoted is a reference to the so-called $200 billion broadband scandal. If you browse through my comment history you'll see that I've been calling the whole "area too large" argument bogus since the beginning, but I too would be thrilled to hear we could get 100Mbps connections in major cities. I would then even understand if they couldn't quite justify rolling out tens of thousands of dollars worth of fiber to every farmhouse in America.

Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We're supposedly the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world and supposedly the leader in information technology and yet our communications network is just downright embarrassing when you compare it with other nations that have fewer resources and less of a head-start on the technologies involved.

Smart***.

In case the point was missed, I was referring to this. I saw this article and was amused to see how closely the numbers fit to our friend the broadband scandal.

With respect to your comment, I can only point out that you completely missed the point. Of course it wouldn't work out quite like that (which is why I said "based on size only"). My point was that after investing money into such a project, even assuming 90% losses through inefficiency and corruption (which is ridiculous to begin with), one should then hope to have an increase of 10% of the proposed expansion. However, as we have seen, even investing twice the amount the Korean government is, we get exactly... 0% return. You don't see a problem with that?

It would be, but that wasn't his point. This was:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

You can find a pretty good rundown on the history of Walmart and China here. And, for a pretty fair breakdown of just how aggressive Walmart has gotten at pressuring its suppliers to use Chinese manufacturing, check out the book The Walmart Effect

Some of it is probably the amount of ground they've got to cover in the US/Canada -- it might be somewhat more accurate to compare infrastructure with Mexico or Russia, for example.

On the other hand, I heard we paid a massive amount to subsidize broadband in the U.S., so no doubt there's a shiny new infrastructure they'll be surprising us with any day now. Guess you Canadians are just out of luck.

Yep... If you *really* want an eye-opening look at the "science of marketing" - check out the PBS Frontline series, "The Persuaders".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/

Worrying about the potential for some video game to influence a person's preferred choice of drink or team jersey will seem trivial by comparison.

Most of the comments here are quite negative towards Mr. Thompson. He is actually a very impressive person. I suggest people who have decided to base their judgment of him on the company he ran watch the episode of CEO Exchange with him in it. http://www.pbs.org/wttw/ceoexchange/episodes/ceo_jthompson.html

As it turns out, violent people tend not to play violent games and people who play violent games tend not to commit violent acts.

However such a large number of young people play games that statistically there is a very small overlap and, it seems, that this overlap is often given as proof of a connection when really the converse serves as counter-proof.

I find it frustrating that studies keep coming out showing a non-casual relationship where each time its treated as "new" news.

For a good read that debunks some of the myths, check out the essay "Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked" by MIT Professor Henry Jenkins posted years ago at pbs.org:

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

My two cents.
--Dave Romig, Jr.

I work for PBS. No check will be written. Our money comes from viewers, sponsorships and endowments.

As someone who used to work for PBS and aided in the plan for the $120 million taxpayer-funded satellite upgrade, I think you may be missing the $50-$100 million per year that regularly comes from the CPB (from Federal tax dollars) or directly from Federal grants to PBS.

Then you need to consider that CPB gets around $400 million from the Federal Government each year, and they turn around and grant $200 million of that directly to public television stations as Community Service Grants, who then turn around and pay $150-$200 million to PBS as member assessments .

Let's see if Windows Mobile survives either. Some thing not.

They're just waiting for the new and improved telco bailout 2009. The latest offering is a 6 billion high speed Internet grant program. Why should comcast, or any big telco for that matter, spend money when the government will just give them handouts.

These companies have experience with this. They have already gotten away with a 200 billion broadband scandal without penalty for failure to deliver on their promises. Give crappy service and they get handed free money - what a great idea.

You mean THIS guy:

"was the Senior Vice President of Legal and Business Affairs for the RIAA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Oppenheim

"Mr. Oppenheim then became active as one of the lead litigators representing the record industry in the landmark "file-sharing" cases against peer-to-peer networks, including against Napster, Aimster, AudioGalaxy, Morpheus, Grokster and Kazaa."
http://www.spoke.com/info/p6QsSD8/MatthewOppenheim

"It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copyright2.html

See, he doesn't even agree with himself. What the RIAA does is not legal, ethical or cool since they copy the artists CDs for their own use. Bad Bad RIAA ;)

It's far worse than the scandal of DOJ positions being played for political views.

In fact playing politics was responsible for much of the post-war Iraq fuckup. Interview questions for positions reconstructing Iraq included opinions on Roe vs. Wade, their position on capital punishment, who they voted for for president, and what religion they were. Positions were being handed out to freaking CAMPAIGN WORKERS. Gee, thanks for helping get Bush elected, here's a job running and rebuilding a collapsed country.

PBS: The Lost Year in Iraq video or transcript

NARRATOR: At the Ministry of Interior, there was a new staff person handling planning for the prisons and police.
 
Col. THOMAS X. HAMMES (Ret.), Counterinsurgency Adviser, CPA: The plans counterpart, who I had to work with in the Ministry of Interior, was a 25-year old. It was his first job after college. So I asked him- I said, "That's pretty interesting. How big a plan cell do you have?" He said, "I have four guys." I said, "That's pretty small." He said, "Yes, but we're really tight because we're frat brothers." I never in my life thought I would encounter "frat brothers" and "strategic planners" in the same sentence.

The person placed in charge of Iraqi prisons and police was 25, fresh out of college, and his planning staff was his four frat brothers.

Gee, I wonder why the Iraq situation went to shit.
Wait... nevermind Iraq... make that the United States.

The Department of Justice, Iraq, science policy, the economy, FEMA, the various Three Letter Acronym intelligence agencies, even the fucking Supreme Court (particularly the cokehead selection Harriet fucking Myers) all throughout government the Bush administration systematically said screw competence, screw experience, screw facts, to hell with the truth, it's all about having the correct rightwing ideology and campaign working and a loyal supporter of the right politicians.

-

It's far worse than the scandal of DOJ positions being played for political views.

In fact playing politics was responsible for much of the post-war Iraq fuckup. Interview questions for positions reconstructing Iraq included opinions on Roe vs. Wade, their position on capital punishment, who they voted for for president, and what religion they were. Positions were being handed out to freaking CAMPAIGN WORKERS. Gee, thanks for helping get Bush elected, here's a job running and rebuilding a collapsed country.

PBS: The Lost Year in Iraq video or transcript

NARRATOR: At the Ministry of Interior, there was a new staff person handling planning for the prisons and police.
 
Col. THOMAS X. HAMMES (Ret.), Counterinsurgency Adviser, CPA: The plans counterpart, who I had to work with in the Ministry of Interior, was a 25-year old. It was his first job after college. So I asked him- I said, "That's pretty interesting. How big a plan cell do you have?" He said, "I have four guys." I said, "That's pretty small." He said, "Yes, but we're really tight because we're frat brothers." I never in my life thought I would encounter "frat brothers" and "strategic planners" in the same sentence.

The person placed in charge of Iraqi prisons and police was 25, fresh out of college, and his planning staff was his four frat brothers.

Gee, I wonder why the Iraq situation went to shit.
Wait... nevermind Iraq... make that the United States.

The Department of Justice, Iraq, science policy, the economy, FEMA, the various Three Letter Acronym intelligence agencies, even the fucking Supreme Court (particularly the cokehead selection Harriet fucking Myers) all throughout government the Bush administration systematically said screw competence, screw experience, screw facts, to hell with the truth, it's all about having the correct rightwing ideology and campaign working and a loyal supporter of the right politicians.

-

So you link to The Federalist Papers? Essays that advocate the stronger central government of the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation, which placed states rights before federal, was a failure.

Now I think you're right, I could stand to brush up on them, I haven't read them all, but is that really what you wanted to link to? Not to mention it only represents the opinions of three of our founders, but I digress.

After the Constitution was drafted many present were thoroughly disgusted with the compromises therein and were convinced it would be as big a failure as the Articles of Confederation before it. Many were considering not signing the document thus dissolving the convention and with it, most likely, The Union. Benjamin Franklin wrote a speech and gave it to a friend to read to everyone present.

It reflects the founders dissatisfaction with the document, but reassured them of the need for it and the government it would create. Here is a clicky thing if you would like to read it. Here's the final sentence if you can't be bothered:

"On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument."

Everyone present signed that piece of parchment. Not because they believed the document to be perfect, but knowing themselves to be imperfect and had confidence that the government it would create empowered the citizenry shape their government to better govern them. To turn our backs on the government by saying that everything they do is wrong or doomed to failure is another step in the march toward despotism.

To be fair, I examined a "con" link, one that you would favor. The page is here:

http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

And PBS claims:

2. (myth) Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression.

(fact) Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects." This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds. In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played. Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here. If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.

There are many things to say about PBS's critique.

1. PBS says, "Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, 'media effects.' This research includes some 300 studies of media violence."

PBS calls it "relatively narrow" as a comparison to other fields of study, but it's really a way to spin the body of research as small and insignificant. But 300 studies is 300 studies. How many studies did PBS conduct?

2. PBS says, "But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds."

Which studies? On what grounds? On what basis does PBS say that they are "inconclusive" when the APA's conclusions are plain for all to see? PBS does not say. This is a sweeping judgment of a body of research that comprises 300 studies.

3. PBS says, "In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context."

And what psychological effect would that have? PBS does not say. And which studies does this apply to? PBS does not say.

4. PBS says, "Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand."

Media is frequently "consumed" by people who would not "normally consume" it. Furthermore, on what psychological basis "understanding" media, specifically as it relates to witnessing acts of violence, germane? PBS does not say.

5. PBS says, "Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played."

The APA says:

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).

Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

6. PBS says, "If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences â" which can contribute to anti-social behavior."

I think the APA's consensus is pretty clear. Go here:

http://search3.apa.org/

Type

Almost a quarter of every dollar we spend on health care is used by administrative expenses. In Taiwan where they have digitalized medical records their overhead is only 2%. There is plenty of examples around the world to why electronic records are better economically. Also there is the benefit of less mistakes since cross referencing medications and such can be done electronically for drug interactions etc. Frontline had an excellent episode were they looked at the health care systems of several other modern democratic countries. A must watch for anybody who cares about the health care debate. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Perhaps you can explain how the countries in this documentary (Germany, Japan, Switzerland, etc.) are able to keep healthcare overhead at around 5% (it's around 24% in the USA) while also providing a great deal more services. It's sick really. The US spends the most on healthcare, but ranks 37th out of the 190 on a list of countries based on quality of healthcare.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Countries with rockstar healthcare systems: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

Perhaps you can explain how the countries in this documentary (Germany, Japan, Switzerland, etc.) are able to keep healthcare overhead at around 5% (it's around 24% in the USA) while also providing a great deal more services. It's sick really. The US spends the most on healthcare, but ranks 37th out of the 190 on a list of countries based on quality of healthcare.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Countries with rockstar healthcare systems: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

That's ridiculous. Unlike noxious-fume pollution, no one is in the least bit worried about the "local effects" of carbon dioxide. It already makes up billions of tons of atmosphere. It only does "damage" in the aggregate. The aggregate is all that matters.

Oh really?

Here is Cringely talking about Apple's behavior generally in June of last year. It bears on what you're saying; you might find it interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080613_005065.html

All over Osama bin Laden, or so we are told.

So what else should we have done? Turned the other cheek and allowed the Taliban to remain in power after they refused to turn over someone whom admitted his involvement in the murder of 3,000 people? Do you honestly think that any other nation on this planet with the capability to intervene would choose not to do so after the murder of so many of it's citizens?

I mean, making deals with one Devil to defeat another

We didn't make a deal with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Stalin came into the war because of something called Operation Barbarossa. Perhaps you've heard of it? Once the Soviet Union was involved in the war it would have been pretty stupid of Churchill and FDR not to coordinate efforts with them.

And you are suprised that Devil didn't keep whatever promises?

Did I say I was surprised? Stalin's intent was pretty well telegraphed even before the Great Patriotic War. Ask any Finn what they think about the Soviet Union.

And until it's fixed, there will be more wars where more innocents will be piled up like core wood. We scorn Hitler for doing this, and yet we do the same.

We do the same as Hitler? Really? I'm sorry but I just can't take you seriously anymore. You can point out hypocrisy in US policy until the cows come home (there's certainly a lot of it to go around) but a comparison to Adolf Hitler? I don't think you understand what true evil really is.

What would you do if you were China right now?

I certainly wouldn't pull the rug out from the major trading partner that is supplying me with the capital I need to lift my people out of poverty. You seem to think that China would get the worse end of it -- tell me, what happens to the regime in Beijing when those hundreds of millions of upwardly-mobile middle class people lose their jobs because of a trade war?

We just won't be as relevant to the rest of the world as we once were

So what? I'm not a particularly big fan of our interventionism. I'm just a realist about it -- as long as the United States remains a Great Power it will do what Great Powers have always done. Do you really think any other country in our position would be acting any differently? I'm just thankful that it's the United States and not China or Russia. In any case, the worst case scenario is that we'd wind up ceding our position as a super power while retaining our freedom and our nuclear deterrent. We'd be in the same position as the UK or France. Big fucking deal -- and not too likely to happen for a few decades in any event.

This is a good thing for our future?

Did I say it was a good thing? Clearly we have a number of challenges that we need to address. Energy, education, health care, blah, blah, blah. What I find interesting is that you are ignoring the challenges facing China and Russia. The former has hundreds of millions of rural poor that they need to pull out of poverty. The latter can't even meet the replacement rate for it's population and just had the rug pulled out from under it's primary revenue source.

What to do? What to do. . .

Tar and Feather the Tax man like good ole Great Great Great Grandpa Adams did

... wasn't to find terrorist, but to weigh the public response so to know how best to manipulate the public via the media, so to support political agendas... such as the war on Iraq drum banging bandwagon for public approval.

It is because such information can be used in such a way, and inherently will be as who wouldn't make use of such information to achive their own agendas, especially when they think they are doing nothing wrong?... that such information should not exist.

However, there is no stopping it now but it can be made public where it's destructive value can be neutralized as was the stock market formula that lead to the trillion dollar bet, made public to neutralize it.

What I'd like to see the Obama administration do is demand that the 200 billion already given to the telco's for 'universal broadband' be actually put into place. Force them to go forward with the plans they had originally stated before taking those billions of tax credits, fees, etc that they never delivered upon. If the monopolies are unwilling to play than force them to pay back their 200 billion to another entity that will do what was promised for that money.

Otherwise the universal broadband is just feeding more money to the telco monopolies. Going with a Universal Broadband sounds great but I only see it as a telco bailout, those big companies are just like all the other election donors with their hands out. Do a campaign finance search for every member of congress dealing with Telco in any fashion. They've loaded the deck to make sure they get their way.

But the US spends twice as much as any other country on health care already, the current system not only fails the 40% (IIRC) who have no coverage at all, it's hideously expensive. Even if you discontinued Medicare and Medicaid (which account for half of the GDP spent on health care) you'd still be spending as much as the UK (one of the more expensive systems) without universal coverage.

There's some very good info here about the health care systems of six countries, all of which are implemented in different ways.

As for people getting over the "foolish idea" that health care is special, it's not going to happen. Most people thankfully prefer to live in a society where being healthy isn't a privilege reserved for the rich.

We've already given broadband companies $200 Billion and they failed miserably.

Seriously, fuck those companies. We built the Hoover Dam, the Interstate System, and the Space Shuttle. There is no way we can't build the best fiber-optic system in the world under the right leadership.

"Newspapers do not seem to have that level of self-awareness, and are stuck in a business model that is not very profitable."

Historically, papers have been extremely profitable, even since the advent of the Web: "A typical newspaper with a 100,000 circulation makes a 15.6 percent annual pre-tax profit margin, according to Inland Daily Press Association and the International Newspaper Financial Executives. The Tribune Company, which owns the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and other media outlets, for example, operates on an 18.3 percent pre-tax profit margin. Gannett, which owns 90 newspapers in the U.S., including USA Today, operates on a 21.4 percent pre-tax profit margin. By comparison, Walmart Stores Inc. operates on a 5.4 percent pre-tax profit margin, while Exxon Mobil Corporation operates on a 17.9 percent pre-tax profit margin."

source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part3/newspaperprimer.html

I've always thought this sort of high profit was kind of messed up, since reporters are paid so little. I don't mean the Sean Hannitys and Wolf Blitzers of the world, I mean regular cops/city council/schools type newspaper reporters. They earn miserable salaries by and large. Take a look at www.journalismjobs.com and you'll see $30,000/year is pretty typical. Where's the profit going? Shareholders I suppose, not into journalism. It's all business, sadly. And it has been sucking the life out of newspapers for decades, even before the Web was a factor.

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

Don't confuse evidence with effect because then you misconstrue science. As a measure of global warming scientists have used qualitative measurements like average temperature as a gauge or baseline. In science you need qualitative arguments. You can't say "the earth is getting warmer" without basing it on something qualitative. The raise in temperature is also not absolute but relative. For example, the average temperature from year to year are being compared to another not to the absolute temperature. What the data shows isn't just that the earth is getting warmer (that has happened before), but that the rate of climate change is much faster than in any previous period in the last several million years.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out. What they using are polar snowfall thickness, air pocket analysis, vegetation studies, etc.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

Again, temperature is relative and being used for comparison. Temperatures are not absolute. In this vein, a change of few degrees by comparison changed the Sahara a few hundred thousand years ago from a tropical forest into the desert.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

You haven't been paying close attention to NOAA. Or the warnings issued by the EPA. That's just within this government. Italy is concerned about Venice sinking into the sea that they are building sea barriers. They realize however Venice faces both rising sea levels and Venice was built on soft clay.

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

As a human you can change the temperature of your indoor surroundings or clothing. Many things in nature are triggered by temperature. Deciduous trees shed leaves and grow them back based on temperature. Some animals mate based on temperature (crocodile gender is determined by the egg nest's temperature). The world is bigger than your personal comfort level.