I don't think you get my overall point. The law-like understanding of the world is under-girded by theistic assumptions. I would go with Airplane A and theism backs that belief up.
Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past. But if you don't assume that the reason why the future is like the past is due to God sustaining and creating those rules, you have laws of physics resting on nothing. There's no reason they won't change.
Or the fact that atheists trust their own rationality. I mean you have your thoughts being due to brains that weren't designed for any particular reason. Why trust your own rationality? As JBS Haldane wrote:
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Or that materialists like to use immaterial laws of logic.
You have a ton of liberals claiming there is a right to privacy which guarantees a right to an abortion... but we have to have a single payer health insurer that knows practically everything about us.
I meant for society as a whole. No offense to you, your choices are your own, but society is sustainable because of children. It's like herd immunity and not having vaccines. If very few people are doing it, you don't have to get your shot and society is still fine. If no one is doing it, we're screwed.
States don't feel like auditing their citizens. There is already a method of collection. At least in my state, there is a line on the state tax form to pay use taxes. Barely anyone pays it and it would be extremely hard to audit. Plus, you have to do it for each individual.
But if I were Amazon, I would tell the different states that their problems with collecting from individuals is not my problem.
As for health care, the tax code is geared for employers to pick up the insurance. Medicare and Medicaid, but especially Medicare, hides the cost from the recipient.
You make a good point that would be applicable to tort reform. It also explains some of the reason that insurance companies can have layers of crap you have to get through to get a treatment.
"However, the rest of your post is extremely stupid, because the government subsides neither health care nor housing."
Medicare, Medicaid, tax deductions for employers but not employees... Tax rebates for mortgage interest rates and property taxes which renters don't get.
What do health care costs, housing costs (pre-bubble bursting), and college tuition costs all have in common?
1) They all have risen much faster than inflation. 2) They are all subsidized by government.
If you hide the cost of a good from people via the tax code and you subsidize the good, you will get no mechanism to control costs. The tax code hides the cost of insurance since employees don't see or feel the employer's payment.
Oddly enough Lasik surgeries haven't gone up in price. It isn't covered by insurance.
Granted, there's a lot more nuance and information to bear on this topic. But it is a dynamic that can't be ignored. If you hide the price from someone, costs will go up. Unless you want to ration. Which when the HMOs tried to do it in the 1990s was about as popular as a skunk crashing a party.
Predictions with little to no ability to falsify them don't exactly qualify as "science." "In a system with a lot of variability to begin with, CO2 is going to increase the risk of variability."
Ok, maybe at one level it's science. Pointing out that the prediction doesn't have much predictive value isn't "railing against science."
Fracking, natural gas, and, if you have the political will, nuclear. That's the answer.
I'm sure these projects could have a benefit and will be fine. But they don't seem to be a key solution. Everything else can be in the mix, but we aren't moving away from fossil fuels unless we want to nuke up. And as we've seen with Germany and the general green resistance to nuclear, that's not happening.
When you agree to obtain security clearances, you are agreeing to open up your life so the government can trust you with high degree of responsibility.
The only exception should be people who need government security clearances, and even then it should be the government who gets access, not the employer.
Circa 2007, when XP ruled the land, I made the switch to a Mac. I was tired of dealing with Windows, wanted the stability of Unix, and didn't feel like fiddling with Linux.
If Windows 7 was the OS back in 2007, I'm not sure if I would have made the switch.
Anway, when that window was open, I think Apple grabbed people like me. And then Apple really caught fire.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you get my overall point. The law-like understanding of the world is under-girded by theistic assumptions. I would go with Airplane A and theism backs that belief up.
I would say the same thing as a theist.
Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past. But if you don't assume that the reason why the future is like the past is due to God sustaining and creating those rules, you have laws of physics resting on nothing. There's no reason they won't change.
Or the fact that atheists trust their own rationality. I mean you have your thoughts being due to brains that weren't designed for any particular reason. Why trust your own rationality? As JBS Haldane wrote:
"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
Or that materialists like to use immaterial laws of logic.
Funny goes both ways.
You have a ton of liberals claiming there is a right to privacy which guarantees a right to an abortion... but we have to have a single payer health insurer that knows practically everything about us.
I meant for society as a whole. No offense to you, your choices are your own, but society is sustainable because of children. It's like herd immunity and not having vaccines. If very few people are doing it, you don't have to get your shot and society is still fine. If no one is doing it, we're screwed.
Yeah. Nothing says "sustainable welfare state" and "stable retirement" like having no children.
When did Fox News ever do anything like this?
States don't feel like auditing their citizens. There is already a method of collection. At least in my state, there is a line on the state tax form to pay use taxes. Barely anyone pays it and it would be extremely hard to audit. Plus, you have to do it for each individual.
But if I were Amazon, I would tell the different states that their problems with collecting from individuals is not my problem.
Housing is subsidized by the tax code.
As for health care, the tax code is geared for employers to pick up the insurance. Medicare and Medicaid, but especially Medicare, hides the cost from the recipient.
You make a good point that would be applicable to tort reform. It also explains some of the reason that insurance companies can have layers of crap you have to get through to get a treatment.
"However, the rest of your post is extremely stupid, because the government subsides neither health care nor housing."
Medicare, Medicaid, tax deductions for employers but not employees... Tax rebates for mortgage interest rates and property taxes which renters don't get.
I stopped reading your post after this sentence.
What do health care costs, housing costs (pre-bubble bursting), and college tuition costs all have in common?
1) They all have risen much faster than inflation.
2) They are all subsidized by government.
If you hide the cost of a good from people via the tax code and you subsidize the good, you will get no mechanism to control costs. The tax code hides the cost of insurance since employees don't see or feel the employer's payment.
Oddly enough Lasik surgeries haven't gone up in price. It isn't covered by insurance.
Granted, there's a lot more nuance and information to bear on this topic. But it is a dynamic that can't be ignored. If you hide the price from someone, costs will go up. Unless you want to ration. Which when the HMOs tried to do it in the 1990s was about as popular as a skunk crashing a party.
There's a guy who did sabermetrics in baseball who came up with a completely revolutionary way of evaluating pitchers and spread his knowledge for free: http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201101/sabermetrician-exile
It's affected millions of dollars worth of salaries. He now refuses to do any work for free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UT04p5f7U
Predictions with little to no ability to falsify them don't exactly qualify as "science." "In a system with a lot of variability to begin with, CO2 is going to increase the risk of variability."
Ok, maybe at one level it's science. Pointing out that the prediction doesn't have much predictive value isn't "railing against science."
The first 500 people to actually use Google+ will get tickets.
I have 3 boys. I understand what you are saying well. But you still wouldn't be the target of advertising.
If you want access to China's market, you have to build in China. And if you are building in China, China is figuring out how you build things.
Fracking, natural gas, and, if you have the political will, nuclear. That's the answer.
I'm sure these projects could have a benefit and will be fine. But they don't seem to be a key solution. Everything else can be in the mix, but we aren't moving away from fossil fuels unless we want to nuke up. And as we've seen with Germany and the general green resistance to nuclear, that's not happening.
But, sure, create a bunch of underwater turbines.
They get the ability to really improve voice recognition software, the ability to search on audio, etc.
Just a guess.
My guess would be that once buying habits are set for parents, they are hard to change. So advertising for that demographic would be worth less.
When you agree to obtain security clearances, you are agreeing to open up your life so the government can trust you with high degree of responsibility.
Also, the value of major currencies, including the dollar, is going down, making oil look more expensive.
The only exception should be people who need government security clearances, and even then it should be the government who gets access, not the employer.
My sig isn't pro-war. It's anti-being relexifively anti-war.
A big problem with that. That's in the eye of the beholder.
Circa 2007, when XP ruled the land, I made the switch to a Mac. I was tired of dealing with Windows, wanted the stability of Unix, and didn't feel like fiddling with Linux.
If Windows 7 was the OS back in 2007, I'm not sure if I would have made the switch.
Anway, when that window was open, I think Apple grabbed people like me. And then Apple really caught fire.