Quite simple really (although I am not saying that I completely agree with their interpretation), just look at the following verses: Matthew 5:38–42, 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. There are others as well that feed into this same thought, but I'm too lazy to look them up currently.
Do you have some basis for believing that the two Mennonite brothers do not have high tech for themselves? The overwhelming majority of Mennonites have no teachings against any modern technology.
Corporations have only been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people in the U.S. over the last 150 years or so. Otherwise in the U.S. they were treated as legal entities with limited rights.
So, for most of the history of the U.S. they have been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people (hint, the U.S. is less than 250 years old).
Now, please tell me how you can follow those commands of Christ and be rich?
I don't know, but that does not mean that someone else has not done so. As to the first question, you asked about Luke 6:30, I do know wealthy people who, as far as I know, followed that rule. As to the Luke 3:11 passage, again, I know wealthy persons who give away more than 50% of what they earn. None of the verses you listed said that you cannot be a faithful Christian and be rich. The fact that you believe that it is not possible to follow those commands and be rich does not make it so that someone who DOES follow those commands and is still rich is somehow sinning.
I'm sorry, but none of the verses you quoted actually support your argument. I have known people who found it impossible to give their wealth to those in need faster than they were able to earn it. Of course, they put as much effort into making sure that the things they spent their money actually helped people who were in need.
Actually yes. However, you apparently think that while the general population is not smart enough to make intelligent decisions for themselves, they are smart enough to make intelligent decisions for everybody else. Because that is what you are asking for. You are asking the general population to make a decision that applies to everyone. If they aren't smart enough to make an intelligent decision for themselves, what makes you think they are smart enough to make an intelligent decision for me?
OK, perhaps you should take a look at accident statistics in the U.S. in order to discover that as cellphone use has increased traffic related deaths have decreased. This does not mean that cellphone use in the car is not dangerous. It just means that it is not something that needs to be "fixed". The fact of the matter is that 16 year olds are going to be dangerous drivers. If they are not doing something stupid with a cellphone when they are driving, they will find something else to do besides pay attention to their driving.
I would make one caveat to the above. I have run across several jobs where they are looking for A+ certification. In those cases, keep a copy of your resume with the A+ certification on it to submit to just them. I would however mention that you will want to pay close attention during the interview to decide if you really want to work for that company.
Where is your evidence that their population is healthier? Perhaps it is based on average life expectancy that is higher in other nations...except that people from those nations who live in the U.S. have a higher life expectancy than those who live in the home country. Or perhaps one could look at the five year survival rates for those diagnosed with various forms of cancer? No, there again, the U.S. ranks at or near the top across the board (other countries which rank above the U.S. for certain cancers rank well below them for the others).
So, what is your basis for saying that those populations are healthier.
Except that the evidence suggests that the problem with costs of health care are a result of the nationalization we have already done (Medicare and Medicaid). If you track the rate of increase of healthcare costs over time, they used to rise in step with inflation. However, the year after Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, healthcare costs began to rise significantly faster than inflation. There are other factors which have influenced this increase in the rate of increase (the gap between healthcare costs and inflation has widened since then). This suggests that nationalizing all of healthcare will only accelerate the rate at which the cost of healthcare increases.
Ultimately, my problem with turning the lawyers loose on this is that many of the problems we already have in medicine in the U.S. are a product of lawsuits against medical practitioners. I have a strong bias against giving additional power over a system in order to fix it to those who broke it in the first place (while lawyers are not directly responsible for the failures in this part of the medical world, their actions in other areas contributed to the mindset that led to this).
Actually, that has the core of a good idea. I would make a couple of changes. First, I don't think the type of ads you are suggesting would be effective (too many people would be sure they were overcharged for treatments who weren't and too many who were would be sure they got value for their money). However, setting up a non-profit which has a panel of professionals who evaluate treatments for an ever expanding number of disorders and educates doctors as to what the reasons are for using various treatments...including comparing the costs (something the drug companies rarely factor in to their material).
The organization would need to make the information readily available to anyone who wanted to look at it, so that those people who choose to be educated patients would be able to look over it as well (even though to be truly effective it would need to primarily target doctors). In order to be effective, this would need to be a private non-profit with its sources of funding an open book. If it was a government agency, it would become subject to something similar to regulatory capture, sooner or later (and probably sooner).
So, you want to take "Wall Street" money out of health care. How do you intend to replace that money? Someone has to put up the money to pay the people who do the actual medical work (and the expenses involved in doing that as well), who do you think is going to supply that money? You mentioned that there are already non-profit medical groups. So, you have not really addressed my question. How is eliminating one of the rewards for funding people working in medicine supposed to increase (or even maintain at current levels) the amount of medical research being done?
OK, so you want to get rid of the profit motive for doing medicine. When I ask you what you want to replace it with, you list off seven things which currently motivate people to go into the medical field, one of which you want to do away with. How exactly is removing one of the motivating factors for pursuing medical innovation going to increase the incentive for people to pursue medical innovation?
What you fail to understand is that I do NOT consider profit as the ONLY motivation for people to do things. However, it is A motivation for people to do things. I am well aware that there are other things that motivate people to take actions. However, I have trouble understanding how reducing the potential rewards (money is only one of many potential rewards, but it IS one) for doing something is supposed to encourage people to do more of it.
So, what incentives do you propose to replace profits? Please note, this has to be an incentive that does not exist within the current system. I often see people recommend that we remove the profit motive from the medical field, but I have never seen them recommend replacing it with another motive. Usually they suggest that people only go into any of the various aspects of the medical field for altruistic reasons. This sounds good, until you realize that under our current system, people are free to enter any of the aspects of the medical field for altruistic reasons, so what they are saying is that they want to reduce the number of people in the various aspects of the medical field by removing those who entered it (or stay in it) because of the profit motive.
You do know that it was Apple that sued Samsung first, right? That this particular suit was a response to Apple suing Samsung for violating their "look and feel"?
I will blame the book industry because I was in the book industry in the 80s and 90s. All of the book publishers saw that ebooks were the future, but instead of getting together and agreeing on a standard, they each developed their own ebook device and format. They then tried to sell it to everybody else. If the publishers had been willing to give up on the idea that they would be the one that all the other publishers would have to pay to publish in the ebook form that everyone would use they could have introduced ereaders to the population much sooner.
Yeah, I can explain it. Autism tends to appear at a certain age range. That age range happens to be the same as the age range when we normally vaccinate children. Amazingly a certain percentage of children start to show autistic symptoms shortly after being vaccinated. Of course, a similar percentage of children who are not vaccinated until somewhat later start to show autistic symptoms at the same age. I have yet to see a study which demonstrates a correlation between vaccination and autism, let alone a study which shows an actual link between them.
That's great for you. What about those who suffer from autism to such a degree that they cannot even be taught to use a toilet? Should they be left in that condition because you have learned to cope with your differences? What you are suggesting is that we should just give up on those that cannot be taught to function in society, so as to avoid threatening the comfortable world you have built for yourself. The fact of the matter is that while the deleterious effects of autism can be ameliorated by proper training (both of the caretaker and the "victim") there are many people who even after such amelioration still cannot function independently.
The problem is that that all depends on the level of autism. My sister works with children with severe autism. If they could be taught to function in the wider world, she would do so. Some of the children she works with cannot even be taught to use the bathroom. Other children where she works can be taught to a higher level of ability to function they are in other classes where she works.
There is a reason it is called a "spectrum" because some people exhibit it in milder forms than others. I suspect that autism is somewhat like the gene that causes sickle cell anemia (except with a smoother gradation between functional and nonfunctional forms) in that in its milder forms it provides an advantage to those who have it in certain settings (the gene for sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria).
So, while it seems like we would be losing something of value if we completely eliminated all aspects of autism, it would be valuable if we could find a way to make the most dysfunctional more able to function independently.
I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.
That would be fine if that was being proposed. However, what is being proposed is that HTML have a tag that calls something that will have to be written for each platform (and thus will only be written for those platforms the content producers consider worth their while to support) in order to decrypt video that is sent with DRM. Of course that thing that is called by the tag (it is no longer called a plugin, but it looks just like one except that it is called from a different place in the code) will be different for every content provider (unless we are lucky and they all decide to use a third party DRM module. Which is unlikely, since most of the content providers are likely to write their own DRM module which they will try to sell to everyone else).
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simple really (although I am not saying that I completely agree with their interpretation), just look at the following verses: Matthew 5:38–42, 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. There are others as well that feed into this same thought, but I'm too lazy to look them up currently.
Do you have some basis for believing that the two Mennonite brothers do not have high tech for themselves? The overwhelming majority of Mennonites have no teachings against any modern technology.
Corporations have only been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people in the U.S. over the last 150 years or so. Otherwise in the U.S. they were treated as legal entities with limited rights.
So, for most of the history of the U.S. they have been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people (hint, the U.S. is less than 250 years old).
Now, please tell me how you can follow those commands of Christ and be rich?
I don't know, but that does not mean that someone else has not done so. As to the first question, you asked about Luke 6:30, I do know wealthy people who, as far as I know, followed that rule. As to the Luke 3:11 passage, again, I know wealthy persons who give away more than 50% of what they earn. None of the verses you listed said that you cannot be a faithful Christian and be rich. The fact that you believe that it is not possible to follow those commands and be rich does not make it so that someone who DOES follow those commands and is still rich is somehow sinning.
Not everyone who is rich owns a yacht, or throws lavish parties.
I'm sorry, but none of the verses you quoted actually support your argument. I have known people who found it impossible to give their wealth to those in need faster than they were able to earn it. Of course, they put as much effort into making sure that the things they spent their money actually helped people who were in need.
Actually yes. However, you apparently think that while the general population is not smart enough to make intelligent decisions for themselves, they are smart enough to make intelligent decisions for everybody else. Because that is what you are asking for. You are asking the general population to make a decision that applies to everyone. If they aren't smart enough to make an intelligent decision for themselves, what makes you think they are smart enough to make an intelligent decision for me?
OK, perhaps you should take a look at accident statistics in the U.S. in order to discover that as cellphone use has increased traffic related deaths have decreased. This does not mean that cellphone use in the car is not dangerous. It just means that it is not something that needs to be "fixed". The fact of the matter is that 16 year olds are going to be dangerous drivers. If they are not doing something stupid with a cellphone when they are driving, they will find something else to do besides pay attention to their driving.
I would make one caveat to the above. I have run across several jobs where they are looking for A+ certification. In those cases, keep a copy of your resume with the A+ certification on it to submit to just them. I would however mention that you will want to pay close attention during the interview to decide if you really want to work for that company.
We, also get significantly better healthcare based on the five year survival rate for someone diagnosed with cancer.
Where is your evidence that their population is healthier? Perhaps it is based on average life expectancy that is higher in other nations...except that people from those nations who live in the U.S. have a higher life expectancy than those who live in the home country. Or perhaps one could look at the five year survival rates for those diagnosed with various forms of cancer? No, there again, the U.S. ranks at or near the top across the board (other countries which rank above the U.S. for certain cancers rank well below them for the others).
So, what is your basis for saying that those populations are healthier.
Except that the evidence suggests that the problem with costs of health care are a result of the nationalization we have already done (Medicare and Medicaid). If you track the rate of increase of healthcare costs over time, they used to rise in step with inflation. However, the year after Medicare and Medicaid went into effect, healthcare costs began to rise significantly faster than inflation. There are other factors which have influenced this increase in the rate of increase (the gap between healthcare costs and inflation has widened since then). This suggests that nationalizing all of healthcare will only accelerate the rate at which the cost of healthcare increases.
Yes, and the unions are run by those plutocrats.
Ultimately, my problem with turning the lawyers loose on this is that many of the problems we already have in medicine in the U.S. are a product of lawsuits against medical practitioners. I have a strong bias against giving additional power over a system in order to fix it to those who broke it in the first place (while lawyers are not directly responsible for the failures in this part of the medical world, their actions in other areas contributed to the mindset that led to this).
Actually, that has the core of a good idea. I would make a couple of changes. First, I don't think the type of ads you are suggesting would be effective (too many people would be sure they were overcharged for treatments who weren't and too many who were would be sure they got value for their money). However, setting up a non-profit which has a panel of professionals who evaluate treatments for an ever expanding number of disorders and educates doctors as to what the reasons are for using various treatments...including comparing the costs (something the drug companies rarely factor in to their material).
The organization would need to make the information readily available to anyone who wanted to look at it, so that those people who choose to be educated patients would be able to look over it as well (even though to be truly effective it would need to primarily target doctors). In order to be effective, this would need to be a private non-profit with its sources of funding an open book. If it was a government agency, it would become subject to something similar to regulatory capture, sooner or later (and probably sooner).
So, you want to take "Wall Street" money out of health care. How do you intend to replace that money? Someone has to put up the money to pay the people who do the actual medical work (and the expenses involved in doing that as well), who do you think is going to supply that money? You mentioned that there are already non-profit medical groups. So, you have not really addressed my question. How is eliminating one of the rewards for funding people working in medicine supposed to increase (or even maintain at current levels) the amount of medical research being done?
OK, so you want to get rid of the profit motive for doing medicine. When I ask you what you want to replace it with, you list off seven things which currently motivate people to go into the medical field, one of which you want to do away with. How exactly is removing one of the motivating factors for pursuing medical innovation going to increase the incentive for people to pursue medical innovation?
What you fail to understand is that I do NOT consider profit as the ONLY motivation for people to do things. However, it is A motivation for people to do things. I am well aware that there are other things that motivate people to take actions. However, I have trouble understanding how reducing the potential rewards (money is only one of many potential rewards, but it IS one) for doing something is supposed to encourage people to do more of it.
So, what incentives do you propose to replace profits? Please note, this has to be an incentive that does not exist within the current system. I often see people recommend that we remove the profit motive from the medical field, but I have never seen them recommend replacing it with another motive. Usually they suggest that people only go into any of the various aspects of the medical field for altruistic reasons. This sounds good, until you realize that under our current system, people are free to enter any of the aspects of the medical field for altruistic reasons, so what they are saying is that they want to reduce the number of people in the various aspects of the medical field by removing those who entered it (or stay in it) because of the profit motive.
You do know that it was Apple that sued Samsung first, right? That this particular suit was a response to Apple suing Samsung for violating their "look and feel"?
I will blame the book industry because I was in the book industry in the 80s and 90s. All of the book publishers saw that ebooks were the future, but instead of getting together and agreeing on a standard, they each developed their own ebook device and format. They then tried to sell it to everybody else. If the publishers had been willing to give up on the idea that they would be the one that all the other publishers would have to pay to publish in the ebook form that everyone would use they could have introduced ereaders to the population much sooner.
If they had a way to test for autism in the womb, it would already be recommended... and done routinely.
Yeah, I can explain it. Autism tends to appear at a certain age range. That age range happens to be the same as the age range when we normally vaccinate children. Amazingly a certain percentage of children start to show autistic symptoms shortly after being vaccinated. Of course, a similar percentage of children who are not vaccinated until somewhat later start to show autistic symptoms at the same age. I have yet to see a study which demonstrates a correlation between vaccination and autism, let alone a study which shows an actual link between them.
That's great for you. What about those who suffer from autism to such a degree that they cannot even be taught to use a toilet? Should they be left in that condition because you have learned to cope with your differences? What you are suggesting is that we should just give up on those that cannot be taught to function in society, so as to avoid threatening the comfortable world you have built for yourself. The fact of the matter is that while the deleterious effects of autism can be ameliorated by proper training (both of the caretaker and the "victim") there are many people who even after such amelioration still cannot function independently.
The problem is that that all depends on the level of autism. My sister works with children with severe autism. If they could be taught to function in the wider world, she would do so. Some of the children she works with cannot even be taught to use the bathroom. Other children where she works can be taught to a higher level of ability to function they are in other classes where she works.
There is a reason it is called a "spectrum" because some people exhibit it in milder forms than others. I suspect that autism is somewhat like the gene that causes sickle cell anemia (except with a smoother gradation between functional and nonfunctional forms) in that in its milder forms it provides an advantage to those who have it in certain settings (the gene for sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria).
So, while it seems like we would be losing something of value if we completely eliminated all aspects of autism, it would be valuable if we could find a way to make the most dysfunctional more able to function independently.
I prefer if HTML includes provisions to allow optional cross-platform DRM instead of having to rely on plugins/stores/apps.
That would be fine if that was being proposed. However, what is being proposed is that HTML have a tag that calls something that will have to be written for each platform (and thus will only be written for those platforms the content producers consider worth their while to support) in order to decrypt video that is sent with DRM. Of course that thing that is called by the tag (it is no longer called a plugin, but it looks just like one except that it is called from a different place in the code) will be different for every content provider (unless we are lucky and they all decide to use a third party DRM module. Which is unlikely, since most of the content providers are likely to write their own DRM module which they will try to sell to everyone else).