Yeah, my thinking exactly. You'd almost think they are employed by the oil industry or something in order to turn the public opinion against the green movement. Surely they are not so dumb as to not realize that the only real effect of their actions is to harm the causes that they claim to believe in.
You don't need lots of science to test a specific case like the one in question: "does living near an AM tower increase your risk of cancer?" All you need is some reliable data on cancer rates for people who live near one versus those who live far away from one.
I think any such link would be easy to spot unless the effect is so miniscule that it doesn't show up without a very large sample, in which case all kinds of other questions come up: how does it compare to having a cell phone, or really any kind of radio transmitter, or even your neighbor having one... and shouldn't all those things be banned first before we start blowing up radio towers.
A possibility of sex with a very attractive woman obviously makes men excited, who can focus on some test after that. I wonder how well those same guys would do immediately after they won (or just missed out on) a million dollar jackpot or any similar event. I don't think it's anything to do with impressing women but with the fact that it's harder to do a test when you're excited about something than when you are calm. Btw I've seen women act plenty stupid when in presence of an attractive guy so it probably works both ways
It's the first time I heard that story and while I was reading the wikipedia article my cat came and curled up on my lap. I have to say I couldn't help feeling a little uneasy, but then I thought come on don't be ridicu
True, but it would have to be a lot less than 83% to be useful.
Either that or the false negatives will have to be a lot less than 17%. I wouldn't care about false positives so much if false negatives were close to 0 - at least it would eliminate the need to do more expensive tests on those who get a negative result. If you always have to test further regardless of the result then what's the point?
To ensure that everyone has a good basic quality of life and the opportunity to improve themselves it is necessary in my opinion to outline some basic services to which people should have free access.
Well, that brings me back to the hypothetical island with ten people. What kind of magical rule is there in the universe that "ensures everyone has a good basic quality of life"? There is only one thing that provides that quality of life and that is the work of individual people. If, say, five of those ten people don't contribute anything, then you are placing the burden on the other five to support them. Can the first five sue the second five if they don't receive good enough quality of life for free (since that is their right)? How about nine out of ten, or for that matter all ten? It is easy enough to show that a general system where such services are a "right" on a par with other human rights is physically impossible and even where it happens to be possible (e.g. in societies where the productive just happen to produce enough for the unproductive too) I would say it's unjust to force the productive to serve the unproductive. Of course, voluntary charity is a different matter but that's not what we are talking about. The same principle applies to larger societies.
I extremely resent having to pay for something and then be bombarded with ads as well.
I do too, but unfortunately it has been a part of life for a long time: newspapers, magazines, cable TV, satellite radio, movies in theaters as well as DVDs with trailers, sporting events etc etc are all things that you pay for and still get bombarded with ads.
This article presents some twitter-size programs that trigger the bug.
Ok, I get libraries of congress and olympic-sized swimming pools, but twitter is a new one. Is it used for measuring how long a program is or how pointless it is?
The "10 people" argument is just a poorly correlated hypothetical scenario. If we were on an island with 10 people, why would I ask for a school? If I'm on a island with an organized government and a population of 10,000,000,000, the request is sensible and proper, if still debatable.
The point was to illustrate the fact that other individuals have to provide their work to create those goods and services and hence (unless those individuals are slaves) they cannot be free. People tend to forget about that when the cost is spread among 300 million people. Nobody sensible can argue that there is a purpose for the government and that there are things it can do that are beneficial, but when someone starts making lists of things that should be free as a matter of right (see new deal for example) they are usually the kind of person who can benefit from such a simplified illustration.
Steve Cook, project manager for the Ares.... which has been plagued with development problems and massive cost/schedule overruns since its inception. Steve Cook also oversaw the (since discredited) 2005 ESAS study...
So, has he done anything good lately? Either the summary is very unfair to the guy or this Dynetics thing is doomed.
Some things should just be free for everybody, like education, libraries and access to the basic information about what's going on in the world around you (ie. news).
Imagine that you are living on a small island with a population of 10 people and you make s statement that those things must be available to you for free, as a matter of "right", even if you don't contribute absolutely anything to providing them. Consider how inconsiderate, and indeed unjust, that would be to the other 9 people who are now burdened with providing you with education, books and news (anything else you'd like to add?) while getting nothing in return. Those thing don't grow on trees you know, in fact they are very expensive. If you are getting them for free, that simply means that somebody else has to pay for them.
Both of your points are true but irrelevant. The government provides laws that make it illegal not to pay money to BBC if you own a TV set. That's enough to make Murdoch's point valid, like it or not.
I was wondering what Open Source apps folks would recommend to replace Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver?
Short answer: You can't. I might get modded down by open source zealots, but the truth is the sooner you forget about the whole idea the better. Using CS3 on an unsupported OS, or indeed switching to a supported OS, not to mention using the latest version (CS4, hello!?), are all infinitely less trouble than trying to do "professional" work with currently available open source tools that could replace it.
However the people that espouse the "informed choice" argument fail to see the flaw in their logic. What's the answer?
I don't think there is a flaw in logic, but rather a conscious decision to choose a lesser evil over a greater one. I think that any choice is seldom completely informed but I prefer uninformed freedom to informed force. After all, people make stupid decisions all the time in all spheres of life and somebody can always come up with a better decisions but that doesn't make it right to impose those decisions by force and control peoples' actions as if they were puppets. That's the path towards a dictatorship, however you want to spin it. You can try educating people about what the balance of scientific reasoning is if you want them to be informed and feel free to compete with Fox News all you want, it shouldn't be too hard.
What you seem to be saying is this: Most human beings are too stupid and shortsighted to make their own decisions so I, as a superior specimen, will make those decisions for them. I am trying but I cannot find a way to read what you said any other way. What qualifications do you have to give you that elevated position? Do you have absolute confidence that you are right in each case where you make decisions for others and, if not, are you comfortable with the fact that others will suffer every time you make a wrong decision? Are other, even more intelligent, humans allowed to make decisions for you as well, creating a pyramid of ever greater intelligence and knowledge leading up to an all knowing, all powerful dictator? If not, where do you draw the line? Or perhaps you believe that would be a good thing?
The broken window fallacy makes a number of implicit assumptions. If you smash the window and then replace it with double glazing, for example, then it no longer becomes a falacy;
Not true because you are not taking into account the opportunity cost. There can never be a net benefit for all involved in this situation. The shopkeeper had the option of installing a double glazed window anyway. He doesn't gain anything by having his hand forced. He also had an option to make other investments with the same money. The only way he can even break even is the very unlikely situation where installing a new window is the most effective possible use of his money. As for other people, there is no net benefit either. Window repairman get new business but the local newspaper (where the shopkeeper might have otherwise used the money to advertise), or the machine shop (where he might have invested in new parts), or the signage shop (where he might have bought a better sign), or the bank (where he might have deposited that money) lose the same amount of business that he gains.
Why not. Competition is a good thing. Frankly I find it a bit scary that such an enormous amount of work by so many people is apparently at the mercy of so few. So a "trusted editor" or two with a political agenda can control the major source of information on a particular subject which is apparently referenced by journalists and academics (although of course it shouldn't be), probably comes up as the first result on google etc. If anything, this makes me less inclined to trust the information in wikipedia than when it was free for all and errors could be easily added and just as easily removed. I hope this is just an experiment rather than the first step to implementing this process on the whole thing but I doubt it.
My math skills are fine. Many states have higher minimum wage than the federal one but in any case if I was making the minimum wage I would work more than 40 hours per week. In any case, this is a pointless conversation to start with. It's called a minimum wage for a reason. The point I was making is not that the life is great at the lowest level of society but that it is easily possible to get by and make a living with a bare minimum of sense and responsibility. With a bit more effort just about everybody in this country has opportunities, even during recession, that are greater than just about anywhere else in the world.
Btw, I have a fairly comprehensive private insurance policy and I pay $125/month. Probably you get yours through your employer so you've no idea what it takes to get a private insurance. The problem for me was a prior condition (a fairly minor sports injury) but once I convinced them to insure me, the actual rate is pretty reasonable. The problem for insurance companies are people with serious conditions whose care can cost literally millions in the long run. Once you are insurable at all, the competition between the insurance companies kicks in and you can get a pretty affordable rate. Did you even look it up or you are just making things up as you go? For example you can compare policies at ehealthinsurance.com.
Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel. They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.
Oh really? So, so...if the rest of the world could only take this brand new revolutionary idea from the Australian mint and apply these "robots" to all kinds of industrial tasks.... oh, wait they already do since about 50 years ago
It's weird, when I read the first one I did it in one sitting and I was laughing out loud the whole time. I went out the same day to get the next one and became a huge fan, waiting impatiently for each new book and buying it as soon as it hit the bookstores (as I remember it was years between books). Just for the hell of it I started reading them recently again (all 5 bound together into one volume) and while I appreciated the cleverness, I hardly cracked a smile. Not sure why, they just don't seem as good as I remembered them.
You are simply finding exceptions to the rules, which doesn't really help the discussion. Ok, let me answer them one by one.
So all those well-educated people who are losing their homes are an illusion?
The prosperity of people corresponds very strongly with their educational level. Look it up. Well educated people are very likely to be well off. The fact that some lose their houses as a result of a sharp housing crisis and some bad financial decisions on their part doesn't change the overall trend.
All those unemployed people who aren't in jail don't have even a GED or owe their newfound poverty to a non-exstent drug habit?
Read up on causes of poverty in USA. Drugs and crime contribute enormously to poverty levels and public housing projects make the matter worse by putting such people into one place where their poor choices are reinforced by those around them.
Nice thing to tell a widow....
Come on, this is a particularly poor example. Almost all single parent homes with young children are caused by irresponsible breeding followed by a divorce (if there ever was a marriage in the first place) and hardly any are caused by one parent dying.
and what sort of insurance policy will they be able to buy at the minimum wage?
Not saying they shouldn't try to move up in life but even at minimum wage it is possible to afford health insurance. If their employer doesn't provide insurance (and many do), at a minimum wage we are talking about what, 2K/month. It's easy to find a decent policy for under $150/month.
My point still stands, and it's a well documented one, that if you do those 5 steps your likelihood of living in poverty in USA is statistically extremely small. That's sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I have no problem with society helping out the unfortunate (such as those in your examples, who are a small minority) but I do have a problem with helping the irresponsible (a large majority of those living in poverty).
I won't call you an idiot but you are certainly misinformed. Poverty and lack of health insurance are to a large extent (though of course not absolutely) a matter of choice. A genuine misfortune can happen to anyone and I feel sorry for those people but a large majority of people living below poverty line in the US are living that way because they failed to satisfy one of these 5 conditions:
1. Get some education, high school at least 2. Don't commit a crime and end up in jail 3. Don't use drugs (at least unless you can easily afford them) 4. Don't end up in a situation where you are raising children as a single parent 5. Get a job - any job will do, even fast food or other low paying job that anyone can get
There are exceptions of course, such as those who cannot get insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions which is one place where there might be a case for government to step in. But in general if you do those 5 things you are statistically overwhelmingly likely to have a standard of living above the poverty line and to have health insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, my thinking exactly. You'd almost think they are employed by the oil industry or something in order to turn the public opinion against the green movement. Surely they are not so dumb as to not realize that the only real effect of their actions is to harm the causes that they claim to believe in.
You don't need lots of science to test a specific case like the one in question: "does living near an AM tower increase your risk of cancer?" All you need is some reliable data on cancer rates for people who live near one versus those who live far away from one.
I think any such link would be easy to spot unless the effect is so miniscule that it doesn't show up without a very large sample, in which case all kinds of other questions come up: how does it compare to having a cell phone, or really any kind of radio transmitter, or even your neighbor having one... and shouldn't all those things be banned first before we start blowing up radio towers.
A possibility of sex with a very attractive woman obviously makes men excited, who can focus on some test after that. I wonder how well those same guys would do immediately after they won (or just missed out on) a million dollar jackpot or any similar event. I don't think it's anything to do with impressing women but with the fact that it's harder to do a test when you're excited about something than when you are calm. Btw I've seen women act plenty stupid when in presence of an attractive guy so it probably works both ways
No, no, what parent had in mind was a combination incubator/blender appliance = instant fresh chicken pâté.
It's the first time I heard that story and while I was reading the wikipedia article my cat came and curled up on my lap. I have to say I couldn't help feeling a little uneasy, but then I thought come on don't be ridicu
True, but it would have to be a lot less than 83% to be useful.
Either that or the false negatives will have to be a lot less than 17%. I wouldn't care about false positives so much if false negatives were close to 0 - at least it would eliminate the need to do more expensive tests on those who get a negative result. If you always have to test further regardless of the result then what's the point?
Not only that but I hear that the simulator in question uses images of dirty hippies as targets for the shooting practice. Disgrace!
To ensure that everyone has a good basic quality of life and the opportunity to improve themselves it is necessary in my opinion to outline some basic services to which people should have free access.
Well, that brings me back to the hypothetical island with ten people. What kind of magical rule is there in the universe that "ensures everyone has a good basic quality of life"? There is only one thing that provides that quality of life and that is the work of individual people. If, say, five of those ten people don't contribute anything, then you are placing the burden on the other five to support them. Can the first five sue the second five if they don't receive good enough quality of life for free (since that is their right)? How about nine out of ten, or for that matter all ten? It is easy enough to show that a general system where such services are a "right" on a par with other human rights is physically impossible and even where it happens to be possible (e.g. in societies where the productive just happen to produce enough for the unproductive too) I would say it's unjust to force the productive to serve the unproductive. Of course, voluntary charity is a different matter but that's not what we are talking about. The same principle applies to larger societies.
I extremely resent having to pay for something and then be bombarded with ads as well.
I do too, but unfortunately it has been a part of life for a long time: newspapers, magazines, cable TV, satellite radio, movies in theaters as well as DVDs with trailers, sporting events etc etc are all things that you pay for and still get bombarded with ads.
This article presents some twitter-size programs that trigger the bug.
Ok, I get libraries of congress and olympic-sized swimming pools, but twitter is a new one. Is it used for measuring how long a program is or how pointless it is?
The "10 people" argument is just a poorly correlated hypothetical scenario. If we were on an island with 10 people, why would I ask for a school? If I'm on a island with an organized government and a population of 10,000,000,000, the request is sensible and proper, if still debatable.
The point was to illustrate the fact that other individuals have to provide their work to create those goods and services and hence (unless those individuals are slaves) they cannot be free. People tend to forget about that when the cost is spread among 300 million people. Nobody sensible can argue that there is a purpose for the government and that there are things it can do that are beneficial, but when someone starts making lists of things that should be free as a matter of right (see new deal for example) they are usually the kind of person who can benefit from such a simplified illustration.
Steve Cook, project manager for the Ares .... which has been plagued with development problems and massive cost/schedule overruns since its inception. Steve Cook also oversaw the (since discredited) 2005 ESAS study...
So, has he done anything good lately? Either the summary is very unfair to the guy or this Dynetics thing is doomed.
Some things should just be free for everybody, like education, libraries and access to the basic information about what's going on in the world around you (ie. news).
Imagine that you are living on a small island with a population of 10 people and you make s statement that those things must be available to you for free, as a matter of "right", even if you don't contribute absolutely anything to providing them. Consider how inconsiderate, and indeed unjust, that would be to the other 9 people who are now burdened with providing you with education, books and news (anything else you'd like to add?) while getting nothing in return. Those thing don't grow on trees you know, in fact they are very expensive. If you are getting them for free, that simply means that somebody else has to pay for them.
Both of your points are true but irrelevant. The government provides laws that make it illegal not to pay money to BBC if you own a TV set. That's enough to make Murdoch's point valid, like it or not.
I was wondering what Open Source apps folks would recommend to replace Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver?
Short answer: You can't. I might get modded down by open source zealots, but the truth is the sooner you forget about the whole idea the better. Using CS3 on an unsupported OS, or indeed switching to a supported OS, not to mention using the latest version (CS4, hello!?), are all infinitely less trouble than trying to do "professional" work with currently available open source tools that could replace it.
However the people that espouse the "informed choice" argument fail to see the flaw in their logic. What's the answer?
I don't think there is a flaw in logic, but rather a conscious decision to choose a lesser evil over a greater one. I think that any choice is seldom completely informed but I prefer uninformed freedom to informed force. After all, people make stupid decisions all the time in all spheres of life and somebody can always come up with a better decisions but that doesn't make it right to impose those decisions by force and control peoples' actions as if they were puppets. That's the path towards a dictatorship, however you want to spin it. You can try educating people about what the balance of scientific reasoning is if you want them to be informed and feel free to compete with Fox News all you want, it shouldn't be too hard.
What you seem to be saying is this: Most human beings are too stupid and shortsighted to make their own decisions so I, as a superior specimen, will make those decisions for them. I am trying but I cannot find a way to read what you said any other way. What qualifications do you have to give you that elevated position? Do you have absolute confidence that you are right in each case where you make decisions for others and, if not, are you comfortable with the fact that others will suffer every time you make a wrong decision? Are other, even more intelligent, humans allowed to make decisions for you as well, creating a pyramid of ever greater intelligence and knowledge leading up to an all knowing, all powerful dictator? If not, where do you draw the line? Or perhaps you believe that would be a good thing?
The broken window fallacy makes a number of implicit assumptions. If you smash the window and then replace it with double glazing, for example, then it no longer becomes a falacy;
Not true because you are not taking into account the opportunity cost. There can never be a net benefit for all involved in this situation. The shopkeeper had the option of installing a double glazed window anyway. He doesn't gain anything by having his hand forced. He also had an option to make other investments with the same money. The only way he can even break even is the very unlikely situation where installing a new window is the most effective possible use of his money. As for other people, there is no net benefit either. Window repairman get new business but the local newspaper (where the shopkeeper might have otherwise used the money to advertise), or the machine shop (where he might have invested in new parts), or the signage shop (where he might have bought a better sign), or the bank (where he might have deposited that money) lose the same amount of business that he gains.
Al-yoo-min-i-um is a nasty tinny sort of thing.
Not as bad as "newspaper" or "litterbin".
Why not. Competition is a good thing. Frankly I find it a bit scary that such an enormous amount of work by so many people is apparently at the mercy of so few. So a "trusted editor" or two with a political agenda can control the major source of information on a particular subject which is apparently referenced by journalists and academics (although of course it shouldn't be), probably comes up as the first result on google etc. If anything, this makes me less inclined to trust the information in wikipedia than when it was free for all and errors could be easily added and just as easily removed. I hope this is just an experiment rather than the first step to implementing this process on the whole thing but I doubt it.
My math skills are fine. Many states have higher minimum wage than the federal one but in any case if I was making the minimum wage I would work more than 40 hours per week. In any case, this is a pointless conversation to start with. It's called a minimum wage for a reason. The point I was making is not that the life is great at the lowest level of society but that it is easily possible to get by and make a living with a bare minimum of sense and responsibility. With a bit more effort just about everybody in this country has opportunities, even during recession, that are greater than just about anywhere else in the world.
Btw, I have a fairly comprehensive private insurance policy and I pay $125/month. Probably you get yours through your employer so you've no idea what it takes to get a private insurance. The problem for me was a prior condition (a fairly minor sports injury) but once I convinced them to insure me, the actual rate is pretty reasonable. The problem for insurance companies are people with serious conditions whose care can cost literally millions in the long run. Once you are insurable at all, the competition between the insurance companies kicks in and you can get a pretty affordable rate. Did you even look it up or you are just making things up as you go? For example you can compare policies at ehealthinsurance.com.
Robots are never affected by having a bad night with the baby and falling asleep at the wheel. They are extremely accurate and they always do the same task in the same way.
Oh really? So, so...if the rest of the world could only take this brand new revolutionary idea from the Australian mint and apply these "robots" to all kinds of industrial tasks.... oh, wait they already do since about 50 years ago
It's weird, when I read the first one I did it in one sitting and I was laughing out loud the whole time. I went out the same day to get the next one and became a huge fan, waiting impatiently for each new book and buying it as soon as it hit the bookstores (as I remember it was years between books). Just for the hell of it I started reading them recently again (all 5 bound together into one volume) and while I appreciated the cleverness, I hardly cracked a smile. Not sure why, they just don't seem as good as I remembered them.
You are simply finding exceptions to the rules, which doesn't really help the discussion. Ok, let me answer them one by one.
So all those well-educated people who are losing their homes are an illusion?
The prosperity of people corresponds very strongly with their educational level. Look it up. Well educated people are very likely to be well off. The fact that some lose their houses as a result of a sharp housing crisis and some bad financial decisions on their part doesn't change the overall trend.
All those unemployed people who aren't in jail don't have even a GED or owe their newfound poverty to a non-exstent drug habit?
Read up on causes of poverty in USA. Drugs and crime contribute enormously to poverty levels and public housing projects make the matter worse by putting such people into one place where their poor choices are reinforced by those around them.
Nice thing to tell a widow....
Come on, this is a particularly poor example. Almost all single parent homes with young children are caused by irresponsible breeding followed by a divorce (if there ever was a marriage in the first place) and hardly any are caused by one parent dying.
and what sort of insurance policy will they be able to buy at the minimum wage?
Not saying they shouldn't try to move up in life but even at minimum wage it is possible to afford health insurance. If their employer doesn't provide insurance (and many do), at a minimum wage we are talking about what, 2K/month. It's easy to find a decent policy for under $150/month.
My point still stands, and it's a well documented one, that if you do those 5 steps your likelihood of living in poverty in USA is statistically extremely small. That's sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I have no problem with society helping out the unfortunate (such as those in your examples, who are a small minority) but I do have a problem with helping the irresponsible (a large majority of those living in poverty).
I won't call you an idiot but you are certainly misinformed. Poverty and lack of health insurance are to a large extent (though of course not absolutely) a matter of choice. A genuine misfortune can happen to anyone and I feel sorry for those people but a large majority of people living below poverty line in the US are living that way because they failed to satisfy one of these 5 conditions:
1. Get some education, high school at least
2. Don't commit a crime and end up in jail
3. Don't use drugs (at least unless you can easily afford them)
4. Don't end up in a situation where you are raising children as a single parent
5. Get a job - any job will do, even fast food or other low paying job that anyone can get
There are exceptions of course, such as those who cannot get insurance at any price due to preexisting conditions which is one place where there might be a case for government to step in. But in general if you do those 5 things you are statistically overwhelmingly likely to have a standard of living above the poverty line and to have health insurance.