If I lay off someone who isn't needed and hire someone who is needed, I make my business more productive and increase the overall amount of wealth in the economy.
At least theoretically, the person I laid off becomes an available resource which will make either himself or someone else wealthier, adding more value than they would have if they stayed in my theoretical company.
The argument in the summary should have stopped at using the argument based on productivity. If your worker will make less mistakes and be more productive by working less, you want your worker to work about 40 hours.
"For every four Americans working a 50-hour week, every week, there's one American who should have a full-time job, but doesn't."
This, however, doesn't follow. If a 40 hour a week worker is more productive I might not need the extra worker if I'm getting more from my team. However, that may mean I can put my capital to better use in a different area, not necessarily software development.
Intelligent Design is the "it". The field is trying to determine ways to answer questions about teleology. Is this thing (fill in the blank) designed? That's it. Darwinism pretty much answers the question regarding biological life as a big "no." Intelligent Design advocates will answer that question "yes."
You are trying to get it to answer more that it intends to. That's not a dodge. If SETI finds a signal that shows there is intelligent life on some distant planet, should I fault SETI if they can't answer how that signal originated?
The question it is trying to answer is teleology, not methodology. I'm sorry if you feel that it is a dodge, but they are only trying to figure out those questions.
As someone with a pre-existing disease, I'm relying on the profit motive. It advances humanity and creates cures. Making people do something for free means they'll stop doing it.
This argument, which you got from the "New Atheists" and specifically Dawkins, is just awful philosophy and theology.
If you want to read a complete take down of this, read Alvin Plantinga: Here there is much to say, but I'll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors." A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: "Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are." No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.
Maybe I'm a tad cynical, but I fail to see how public schools are accountable, and more so than private schools. Being able to pull your kids out of a school is what, at the end of the day, provides for accountability.
At least here in New Jersey, it seems the answer for the public school system always boils down to "more money."
One more practical thing which comes from teacher friends. Any student that is a disruption should be booted from the classroom. The kids that want to learn shouldn't be sacrificed to the few problem kids. Teachers and administrators need the tools to boot these kids.
From what I've heard, even mediocre teachers can do a lot when the bad apples are removed.
Other posters have mentioned it, but I'll throw my two cents in.
Yes, everything from quality of teachers to more vocational training to tablets would be nice (my toddler twins and 4 year old learn a lot on the iPad).
But nothing beats involved parents who care. Almost every homeschooler I knew was well-educated. But this applies to private and public schools as well. It comes down to the parents. And we don't need the stereotypical "Tiger Mom" either.
And what is the government going to do? Force fathers not to be deadbeats? Force good parenting?
If you lived in the world prior to the expansion of Christianity, humans were essentially fodder. Life was cheap and disposable. Heck, even after Christianity rose old habits died pretty hard.
We act basically decently because of structures that pound the need for decency into you from a young age. Parents, community, etc. If you remove those constraints, you will be surprised how bad people will become.
I hate to use Nazi Germany as an example, but humans can fall very far, very quickly. Not everyone. There was still pockets of decency. But I suspect they got their decency prior to the rise of Hitler.
Did is take, not one, but two bombs and the Emperor intervening because they were trying so hard for peace? Wasn't there also an attempted coup because high-ranking officers couldn't stomach surrender?
Maybe they would have surrendered after another million Japanese died. Even if what you say is true, the atomic bomb saved both Japanese and American lives.
I have been thinking the same thing for years. (Regardless of political views of these types.) And if you bring it up people will tell you you are a huge jerk.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR3vNwhL__k
I'm sorry, I'm not following your argument. Feel free to restate and clarify.
If I lay off someone who isn't needed and hire someone who is needed, I make my business more productive and increase the overall amount of wealth in the economy.
At least theoretically, the person I laid off becomes an available resource which will make either himself or someone else wealthier, adding more value than they would have if they stayed in my theoretical company.
The argument in the summary should have stopped at using the argument based on productivity. If your worker will make less mistakes and be more productive by working less, you want your worker to work about 40 hours.
"For every four Americans working a 50-hour week, every week, there's one American who should have a full-time job, but doesn't."
This, however, doesn't follow. If a 40 hour a week worker is more productive I might not need the extra worker if I'm getting more from my team. However, that may mean I can put my capital to better use in a different area, not necessarily software development.
Intelligent Design is the "it". The field is trying to determine ways to answer questions about teleology. Is this thing (fill in the blank) designed? That's it. Darwinism pretty much answers the question regarding biological life as a big "no." Intelligent Design advocates will answer that question "yes."
You are trying to get it to answer more that it intends to. That's not a dodge. If SETI finds a signal that shows there is intelligent life on some distant planet, should I fault SETI if they can't answer how that signal originated?
The question it is trying to answer is teleology, not methodology. I'm sorry if you feel that it is a dodge, but they are only trying to figure out those questions.
As someone with a pre-existing disease, I'm relying on the profit motive. It advances humanity and creates cures. Making people do something for free means they'll stop doing it.
The bias is always towards what is seen. We can see the drug prices getting cut. We cannot see a drug that will never get created.
It's not a dodge. It's answering a different question. It's asking "does this thing show marks of teleology?" It doesn't ask "how?"
The difference, as I would explain it, would be like this. I can tell Intel's chips are designed. I don't know how they did it or who exactly did it.
"because we know intelligent life is able to arise by itself"
No, we don't know that.
"Except one side has faith, and the other accepts logic and evidence."
And, yet again, both sides would agree with this statement.
This argument, which you got from the "New Atheists" and specifically Dawkins, is just awful philosophy and theology.
If you want to read a complete take down of this, read Alvin Plantinga: Here there is much to say, but I'll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors." A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: "Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are." No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.
"You cannot convince someone who has faith that they are wrong."
A lot of people on both sides would agree with that comment.
Maybe I'm a tad cynical, but I fail to see how public schools are accountable, and more so than private schools. Being able to pull your kids out of a school is what, at the end of the day, provides for accountability.
At least here in New Jersey, it seems the answer for the public school system always boils down to "more money."
One more practical thing which comes from teacher friends. Any student that is a disruption should be booted from the classroom. The kids that want to learn shouldn't be sacrificed to the few problem kids. Teachers and administrators need the tools to boot these kids.
From what I've heard, even mediocre teachers can do a lot when the bad apples are removed.
Other posters have mentioned it, but I'll throw my two cents in.
Yes, everything from quality of teachers to more vocational training to tablets would be nice (my toddler twins and 4 year old learn a lot on the iPad).
But nothing beats involved parents who care. Almost every homeschooler I knew was well-educated. But this applies to private and public schools as well. It comes down to the parents. And we don't need the stereotypical "Tiger Mom" either.
And what is the government going to do? Force fathers not to be deadbeats? Force good parenting?
If you lived in the world prior to the expansion of Christianity, humans were essentially fodder. Life was cheap and disposable. Heck, even after Christianity rose old habits died pretty hard.
We act basically decently because of structures that pound the need for decency into you from a young age. Parents, community, etc. If you remove those constraints, you will be surprised how bad people will become.
I hate to use Nazi Germany as an example, but humans can fall very far, very quickly. Not everyone. There was still pockets of decency. But I suspect they got their decency prior to the rise of Hitler.
Did is take, not one, but two bombs and the Emperor intervening because they were trying so hard for peace? Wasn't there also an attempted coup because high-ranking officers couldn't stomach surrender?
Maybe they would have surrendered after another million Japanese died. Even if what you say is true, the atomic bomb saved both Japanese and American lives.
Maybe a new DB technology like VoltDB would be better...
I can only imagine the pain and horror their DBA's experience. But what do I know?
A ~12 P/E Ratio doesn't quite scream "bubble."
Frankly, prior to Disney making this into a movie I had no idea that it was sci-fi from 1911.
There are all sorts of factors that come into play.
You have energy costs, infrastructure, education of local population.
It does mean there is barely any demand for the car, even compared to what they were hoping for.
I have been thinking the same thing for years. (Regardless of political views of these types.) And if you bring it up people will tell you you are a huge jerk.
I always wondered why the rebels didn't get an unmanned vehicle, put it into light speed, and plow it into Endor.