So, since no one can be obligated to sacrifice control over their own bodies to save the life of another, it should be perfectly legal for a mother to abandon her baby in the open somewhere. I am sorry, your logic does not hold up. By your logic, parents have no obligation to care for their children.
Under the "risk corridor" provision of the ACA insurance companies which lose money following parts of the law are to have their losses covered by money from a particular fund. Insurance companies which make greater than a certain profit are to pay into that fund. Congress, in another law, wrote that the risk corridor payments must be revenue neutral (that is, the payments for losses must come only out of revenue received from companies which made profits). Unfortunately, there is not enough revenue from profitable insurance companies to cover the loses of those insurance companies which lost money, but courts have ruled the government must cover those losses anyway. That does not sound like Congress controls the purse strings to me.
This is not the only time in which courts have ruled that the government must spend money which Congress refused to appropriate.
Being more than a clump of cells - something sentient.
So, basically it is a subjective thing. A child is not a person until you say it is.
The fact is that if you do not consider conception to be the point at which someone becomes an individual with human rights, there is NO scientific basis for setting the dividing line. There can be no objective judgment of when someone becomes an individual with human rights. The problem with that is that once you decide there is no objective definition of what makes someone human there is no longer a convincing argument against those who define "human" as "those who look like me", because that is what you have done. You, at best, are just using a broader definition of "look like me".
Except that I do not believe that "a good amount of sickness" is due to pollution in first world countries. I do not believe that a significant amount of sickness among the working age population is due to pollution.
The definition I heard for "natural monopoly" was one where a free market would result in a monopoly without government intervention. Your definition appears to be that a "natural monopoly: is one where a monopoly is in the best interest (although I am not sure who's best interest). Since I do not agree that a monopoly is ever the best option, I do not believe that natural monopolies exist by your definition either.
As far as the discussions of bad estimations go, sometimes you have to estimate... but when you make bad estimate after bad estimate (compounding the "badness"), the conclusion becomes pointless.
The problem is that when you make WAG (Wild Ass Guess) estimates based on WAG estimates based on WAG estimates, even when each of those estimates was made in good faith, your conclusion is worthless. The problem with papers like this is that often times each of those WAG estimates was made in bad faith because the person writing the paper knew that no one could challenge them.
I believe that government is both necessary and evil. That means it needs to be severely restricted. Those who believe in a proactive government are either naive, or evil.
I just responded to a person who said that if you think the government is necessary then you have agreed to unlimited government and the only question is what regulations the government will implement.
Here on slashdot, EVERY time someone suggests that government regulations are excessive, someone responds with, "Well, if you don't like government why don't you try living in Somalia?"
EVERYTHING you do affects other people and it has the potential to harm them. Is it likely to harm them? Maybe, maybe not. I will note that you cannot harm someone in a way any greater than by aborting them.
I do not believe that the pollution level in any first world country is high enough to significantly impact the health of people during their productive years (there may be a few localized exceptions to that).
We should probably amend that law and set it to 20 years from first publication.
There fixed that for you.
Actually, I would like to see copyright changed to 14 years from date of first publication with an option to renew it for an additional fourteen years. I find the idea of allowing copyright holders to pay for longer extensions something worth considering (If Walt Disney wants to pay $10,000 a year to keep the copyright on "Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" going indefinitely, I can be convinced to allow that).
Except that studies of the healthcare costs of tobacco use have shown that not to be the case. As people get older, they need ever increasing levels of care. Anything which shortens people's expected life span reduces healthcare costs.
Actually, when you run the numbers on the health impact of tobacco, it turns out that tobacco use reduces the amount of money spent on healthcare over the lifetime of the individual. This happens because, while the cost of treating the illnesses caused by tobacco is high, the tobacco user's life is enough shorter that you do not have the astronomical costs associated with the many different maladies people suffer throughout an extended old age.
The cost saving is not because people who die from tobacco related illnesses are old...it is because most of them never become old.
People keep making this argument, but there is no evidence that there are natural monopolies. The only monopoly that I know of that can be claimed to have come into existence without government intervention is Standard Oil. I doubt that the monopoly could have survived much longer than it did even without the government actively breaking it up. I, also, suspect that some of the business practices it used to become a monopoly were violations of laws other than the Sherman Act.
I am pretty sure you are underestimating the number of deaths and overestimating the number of survivors. Nevertheless, I think your point is correct. I think that if we had a massive nuclear exchange (basically, everyone's nuclear arsenal), I suspect that we would lose a similar percentage of the world's population as when the Black Death swept Eurasia. Which means that there would be sufficient population to restore civilization in the aftermath.
Actually, he seems to be suggesting that the reason the quotas fail is because, even with the quotas, Google will not hire unqualified employees. He then outright suggests that they could fix the problem of having an insufficiently large pool of qualified women applicants by making changes to corporate culture to make it a more appealing place to work for women.
There are studies which show that women are better at filing and sorting tasks than men, although the reason is certain cognitive abilities. Those cognitive abilities are related to Strider's comment about female drivers for contracting equipment. Those some, or similar, cognitive abilities make women better at certain other jobs which are dominated by men as well. I wish I remember where I found the article because it showed that the same logic that made administrative assistants primarily women should make certain other jobs (which were considered jobs for men) primarily women as well.
Except that he was trying to convince the company to make changes to its hiring and work practices to MORE EFFECTIVELY recruit women to those technical jobs which you think he was saying they were genetically predisposed to be inferior at...a goal which he thought was in the best interest of the company he worked for. I am confused how trying to change the company's strategy to more effectively recruit women creates a hostile work environment.
He did not actually say that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. He said that women are genetically predisposed to value different things in the work environment than men. His conclusion was that if you wanted to attract more women, you needed to change the work environment to include those things which they valued and not just the things which men valued in the work environment.
Actually, he stated that they were less interested in the software engineering WORK ENVIRONMENT and that, if Google wanted a higher percentage of women software engineers, which he thought they should want, they needed to change the work environment to one which women had more interest in. He seemed to have a subtext suggesting that such changes would improve the productivity of the workforce outside of its impact on gender recruitment, although that may be a result of my own bias and not a conclusion he intended people to reach.
Slashdot Mirror
So, since no one can be obligated to sacrifice control over their own bodies to save the life of another, it should be perfectly legal for a mother to abandon her baby in the open somewhere. I am sorry, your logic does not hold up. By your logic, parents have no obligation to care for their children.
Under the "risk corridor" provision of the ACA insurance companies which lose money following parts of the law are to have their losses covered by money from a particular fund. Insurance companies which make greater than a certain profit are to pay into that fund. Congress, in another law, wrote that the risk corridor payments must be revenue neutral (that is, the payments for losses must come only out of revenue received from companies which made profits). Unfortunately, there is not enough revenue from profitable insurance companies to cover the loses of those insurance companies which lost money, but courts have ruled the government must cover those losses anyway. That does not sound like Congress controls the purse strings to me.
This is not the only time in which courts have ruled that the government must spend money which Congress refused to appropriate.
Being more than a clump of cells - something sentient.
So, basically it is a subjective thing. A child is not a person until you say it is.
The fact is that if you do not consider conception to be the point at which someone becomes an individual with human rights, there is NO scientific basis for setting the dividing line. There can be no objective judgment of when someone becomes an individual with human rights. The problem with that is that once you decide there is no objective definition of what makes someone human there is no longer a convincing argument against those who define "human" as "those who look like me", because that is what you have done. You, at best, are just using a broader definition of "look like me".
Except that our government long ago stopped being limited by that.
Once more, I will disagree. The question is who gets to decide how the money is spent?
Except that I do not believe that "a good amount of sickness" is due to pollution in first world countries. I do not believe that a significant amount of sickness among the working age population is due to pollution.
So, when does an child become a person? Biologically, it is a separate individual at the moment of conception. So, what is your definition based on?
The definition I heard for "natural monopoly" was one where a free market would result in a monopoly without government intervention. Your definition appears to be that a "natural monopoly: is one where a monopoly is in the best interest (although I am not sure who's best interest). Since I do not agree that a monopoly is ever the best option, I do not believe that natural monopolies exist by your definition either.
So, which are you? Naive? or Evil?
As far as the discussions of bad estimations go, sometimes you have to estimate... but when you make bad estimate after bad estimate (compounding the "badness"), the conclusion becomes pointless.
The problem is that when you make WAG (Wild Ass Guess) estimates based on WAG estimates based on WAG estimates, even when each of those estimates was made in good faith, your conclusion is worthless. The problem with papers like this is that often times each of those WAG estimates was made in bad faith because the person writing the paper knew that no one could challenge them.
I believe that government is both necessary and evil. That means it needs to be severely restricted. Those who believe in a proactive government are either naive, or evil.
I just responded to a person who said that if you think the government is necessary then you have agreed to unlimited government and the only question is what regulations the government will implement.
Here on slashdot, EVERY time someone suggests that government regulations are excessive, someone responds with, "Well, if you don't like government why don't you try living in Somalia?"
EVERYTHING you do affects other people and it has the potential to harm them. Is it likely to harm them? Maybe, maybe not. I will note that you cannot harm someone in a way any greater than by aborting them.
I do not believe that the pollution level in any first world country is high enough to significantly impact the health of people during their productive years (there may be a few localized exceptions to that).
We should probably amend that law and set it to 20 years from first publication.
There fixed that for you.
Actually, I would like to see copyright changed to 14 years from date of first publication with an option to renew it for an additional fourteen years. I find the idea of allowing copyright holders to pay for longer extensions something worth considering (If Walt Disney wants to pay $10,000 a year to keep the copyright on "Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" going indefinitely, I can be convinced to allow that).
Except that studies of the healthcare costs of tobacco use have shown that not to be the case. As people get older, they need ever increasing levels of care. Anything which shortens people's expected life span reduces healthcare costs.
Actually, when you run the numbers on the health impact of tobacco, it turns out that tobacco use reduces the amount of money spent on healthcare over the lifetime of the individual. This happens because, while the cost of treating the illnesses caused by tobacco is high, the tobacco user's life is enough shorter that you do not have the astronomical costs associated with the many different maladies people suffer throughout an extended old age.
The cost saving is not because people who die from tobacco related illnesses are old...it is because most of them never become old.
No, the real question is, how much is actually necessary?
Again and again I see the argument made that if you do not agree that unlimited government is necessary then you must be in favor of no government.
So, to state the real question again, how much say in how you live your life should the government have?
People keep making this argument, but there is no evidence that there are natural monopolies. The only monopoly that I know of that can be claimed to have come into existence without government intervention is Standard Oil. I doubt that the monopoly could have survived much longer than it did even without the government actively breaking it up. I, also, suspect that some of the business practices it used to become a monopoly were violations of laws other than the Sherman Act.
I am pretty sure you are underestimating the number of deaths and overestimating the number of survivors. Nevertheless, I think your point is correct. I think that if we had a massive nuclear exchange (basically, everyone's nuclear arsenal), I suspect that we would lose a similar percentage of the world's population as when the Black Death swept Eurasia. Which means that there would be sufficient population to restore civilization in the aftermath.
Actually, he seems to be suggesting that the reason the quotas fail is because, even with the quotas, Google will not hire unqualified employees. He then outright suggests that they could fix the problem of having an insufficiently large pool of qualified women applicants by making changes to corporate culture to make it a more appealing place to work for women.
As a result of D we will fail to make any significant change to C
There are studies which show that women are better at filing and sorting tasks than men, although the reason is certain cognitive abilities. Those cognitive abilities are related to Strider's comment about female drivers for contracting equipment. Those some, or similar, cognitive abilities make women better at certain other jobs which are dominated by men as well. I wish I remember where I found the article because it showed that the same logic that made administrative assistants primarily women should make certain other jobs (which were considered jobs for men) primarily women as well.
Except that he was trying to convince the company to make changes to its hiring and work practices to MORE EFFECTIVELY recruit women to those technical jobs which you think he was saying they were genetically predisposed to be inferior at...a goal which he thought was in the best interest of the company he worked for. I am confused how trying to change the company's strategy to more effectively recruit women creates a hostile work environment.
He did not actually say that women are genetically predisposed towards different technical work than men. He said that women are genetically predisposed to value different things in the work environment than men. His conclusion was that if you wanted to attract more women, you needed to change the work environment to include those things which they valued and not just the things which men valued in the work environment.
Actually, he stated that they were less interested in the software engineering WORK ENVIRONMENT and that, if Google wanted a higher percentage of women software engineers, which he thought they should want, they needed to change the work environment to one which women had more interest in. He seemed to have a subtext suggesting that such changes would improve the productivity of the workforce outside of its impact on gender recruitment, although that may be a result of my own bias and not a conclusion he intended people to reach.