"Of course people don't call it censorship when they approve of the censoring."
Often true.
"Apparently, because liberals have been doing it for years. Gender equity, more "color" in positive roles, less smoking, etc and so on."
And this is censorship how? Will the government fine you, hold up applications, not renew applications if you don't do these things? Pressure, definitely. Censorship, I don't see it.
To expand, discrimination based on color and gender is illegal (something to do with the US constitution perhaps....), so I hardly see how encouraging equity is censorhip. Banning gender and racial discrimination is hardly "censorship" as discussed here (sure, it could be considered a type of it). In other words, let's get off the "liberal" bogeyman. I suspect a heck of a lot of "conservatives" would support the same goals (at least that's my impression when I hear them speak).
But it goes to a deeper problem. Gore lied. Or at least didn't tell the truth. He exaggerated for political gain (didn't work in this case...) He became the poster boy for this type of thing.
I only wish other statements by other politicians, employers, employees, and people in general were held to the same standard. The world would be a better place if lying and exaggerating were "punished" in this way.
"You have to either be intellectually dishonest, or dumb as a bag of hammers to assume he was inventing the internet."
I don't think anyone assumed that (at least I hope not...) That was his problem. I assumed (or supected) he was exaggerating his accomplishments(aka lying). I see no reason to reward this. Although I understand why he did it.
And in you mayor example, I would have the same reaction "What an f'ing idiot". He didn't clean squat, he merely hired more people to clean the streets, why didn't he say so. Look, many people would like their politicians to tell the truth, I am one of them (many more say they do but their actions say otherwise).
Why couldn't Gore have said "I pushed through the legislation that funded the internet" or "I helped fund the startup of the internet" if you want a shorter quote. It would have been true. And if misquoted, he would have had a case....
Gore was misquoted. But I suspect he wanted to be-he wanted his accomplishments to be seen as more impressive than they were. But he got burned. I think this is a good thing. I just wish it would happen more often.
"When a politician claims to have taken "the initiative in creating" something, a reasonable person would assume he means he allocated funding for it."
Why? Politicians are incapable of being inventors? There are no scientists who are also politicians?
When a politician takes credit for something, I don't assume it is merely funding. Legislation does things other than funding!
Personally, when they take credit for something, I assume they are likely exaggerating their accomplishments. Hell, maybe they actually believe it. In any case, for the most part, I tune that out and lose respect (after all, how many take credit when their legislation goes bad....that I would respect).
"But Pope Julius the II would not have been wrong to say, "I took the initiative in creating the paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.""
Well, maybe not wrong. But it is not a "good" phrase, unless you are TRYING to confuse people. It would be more accurate (and informative) to say "I commissioned the paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel".
"And even if he did say that, nobody would be believe that he was the one doing the painting."
Yes. And no one believed Gore either. But many believed he WAS trying to take credit for something he didn't do and reacted accordingly....
"If you ever wonder why politicians so often sound like robots when they are speaking in public, this is why..."
No. It is because they don't want to offend anyone, it works, AND they don't want to add any ammo to their opponents. Most legislators have records that can be easily twisted anyway....
Look, all he had to do was tell the truth. But he exaggerated. PROBABLY ON PURPOSE (he was a politician trying to get attention, look hip, and elected). And it backfired.
If he had stated that he took the inititiative in creating the legislation that funded the creation of the internet and that was twisted, I would agree with you. But he didn't.
Bullsh$t! He didn't create anything but a piece of legislation.
"If Gore hadn't pushed for funding of the National Science Foundation to create nsfnet, the Internet wouldn't exist in the manner it is today."
And you know this how?
"Just change "took the initiative in creating the internet" with "ran the initiative to fund the creation of the internet" and you have a sentence that means the exact same thing yet can't be misinterpreted."
No, it doesn't mean the same thing. The first one says he did it (or at least implies he did) - you know, invent the protocols, install the hardware, etc. The second one states his role accurately. Of course, it doesn't sound nearly as impressive to "joe sixpack". Sure, he PROBABLY meant the second when he stated the first but as he was a seasoned politician running for president, I strongly suspect he wanted it to be misinterpreted (although in a POSITIVE way).
Let's see, you say the quote was "widely distorted" but I disagree. The transcript (assuming it is correct, etc, etc) states Gore said:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Now reporters saying that "Gore said he invented the internet" is not too far fetched. Sure, created might have been better but so what (not nearly the worst summary I have ever seen by a reporter....)
Note that Gore didn't say he supported the legislation that funded it. Indirectly, in the next sentence, yes, but not directly. Gore set himself up for this-he knew reporters would likely summarize his statement (he wasn't new to the game) and he overreached and got burned.
And note what you said:
"and that the funding Gore helped push through Congress was critical to the project."
In any case, it probably would have happened without him. Look, I know why he made the quote-in the Congress you are not seen as directly responsible for any piece of legislation even if you were critical to it. So you have to make it known. Unlike the president who gets to sign every piece of legislation (see, I supported it....) Legislation is a team sport, when it is good everyone likes to take credit, when it is bad, nobody is responsible...
"When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized."
I'm curious, but when someone mentions the word "union" why does logic suddenly seem to disappear? I am not picking on you alone but why does compensation have to be the same for everyone in a union? As a matter of fact, could you point me to one real life example where ALL members of a union are compensated EXACTLY the same?
A union is a bargaining unit run by its members, as such it doesn't have to dictate compensation. Heck, union members could even be fired for not meeting certain levels of production, so no more crappy coders....
"If you can accomplish more in 2 hours than your coworkers, should you need to put in a full workday to be compensated the same as they are?"
So, how is this REALLY different from now. Are the best programmers recognized? Are they paid five times as much? If your pay is the same, can you only show up two hours a day and not be fired? Or are most companies clueless? So what was your point again?
"I'm not convinced that the traditional model of collective bargaining is a great solution to this problem."
"Why on Earth would you think it's a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to tell a BUSINESS how to do whatever it does? That is incredibly short-sighted and anti-freedom."
Are you kidding? I mean really? If the company is protected from competition, is a natural monopoly, and given tax dollars then, yes, it is a good idea. If the company is a good citizen, then no. But I suspect there aren't many of those. After all, government tell citizens what they can and cannot do every day and if I am not mistaken, corporations are people too....
"How about the companies decide how to roll out the services they're going to provide, and the people decide which company gets their business, and the company that provides the best service wins?"
Hey, that would be great. Really. Which fantasy world does this happen in? Because I would like to move....
I don't think the scientists doing the research have ignored the "moral/ethical quagmire". There are fairly stringent ethical controls on experiments. It is just that some people don't agree with those....
After all, if it was so "bad", why didn't Bush ban all research on the existing lines? Perhaps to attempt to look good to everyone (while ending essentially ending research in the US but not the so-called ethical/moral dilemma?)
"In a different subject, I think that the problem with embryonic stem cell research is its potential to undermine human dignity."
You don't get out much do you? If you really think this has a great potential to undermine human dignity, I give you exhibit A, the world as it is today....
"So if what you want is usable stem cell therapy, you have two choices. You can call the people you disagree with names, which accomplishes nothing, or you can stop trying to fight a losing battle and get on with what matters, which is the actual research."
And how is effectively banning a promising line of research going to help? Those who believe life begins at conception won't change their mind-it is a matter of faith. Sure, calling them names won't help but don't think for a minute that their minds CAN be changed. Oh, and the reality is that the treatment will be researched elsewhere (your false dichotomy not withstanding).
"In practice, people who believe that life begins at conception _also_ want stem cell therapy."
My suspicion is that VERY FEW people would refuse treatment if the stem cells came from a source that violated their ethical standards. I would actually respect those people. I don't respect people who restrict science based on their particular set of moral standards. If non-embryonic tissue will work, I'm sure researchers will use it. If it won't, just don't use the treatments.
The problem is that some people are bothered when other people are free to make choices that they don't agree with.
"Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College."
"There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry."
Oh, I see. And Cambridge University wasn't supported by any government at the time, was it. I mean, it had no support at all from England and its King at the time...
"If embryos are human beings, then it is immoral to manipulate or destroy them for personal benefit. It would clearly be wrong to kill a one-month old (that is, one month after birth) even if the tissue you harvested from them could save 100 people."
But would it be immoral? I mean we regularly execute people for killing one person (or not even killing someone but being an accomplice) in the hopes that this will convince others not to commit murder (best case-in reality it is closer to revenge...) I mean if it is moral to kill a murderer, something that will not save anybody's life, why would the death of a baby (or fetus) that could save 100 people be considered immoral?
We place a value on human life all the time (aka cost benefit analyis)-is this immoral? Government/ private enterprise/people regularly make decisions that cost peoples lives for the sake of money, yet we don't hear the same outcry? Why exactly? These apparent contradictions have always interested me.
"It really isn't as simple an issue as the rhetoric would have you believe..."
"This does not mean Freedom From Religion, that means Freedom Of Religion (like it reads), that the government needs to stop telling people that they cannot bring their symbols into schools and work, that the schools need to teach an objectively balanced education (as opposed to atheist) when it comes to religion."
So, does this mean I can bring in pentagrams to school if I worship Satan? Advocate animal sacrifice? Advocate that there is no God? Etc? Extreme examples in some cases, but I am curious if you REALLY mean what you say. Because in my experience, most people with your point of view really mean "I should be free to bring Christian symbols into work and school". If one can bring ANY religious/cult symbology in, I wouldn't have a problem.
Oh, and BTW, how would one teach religion in an atheist manner? Can't say I have ever heard of that in schools.
"This is why I like the solution of machine generated, but human readable paper ballots. I think it can help cut down on ballot spoilage, which is often pointed to as evidence of political bias (and probably IS sometimes caused by political bias)."
And what amount of error will machines add to the process? There is no point reducing error in one process and adding it in another. And machines WILL add error, don't assume otherwise.
It is very simple, you don't read the instructions, your vote may not be counted. It sucks but that's life. Maybe that will encourage people to ask questions and read the instructions.
"But each ballot contains votes for many different candidates."
Yes, but generally only one race is being recounted... A reasonable person would assume that this step would be slightly different if multiple recounts were going on (well, I imagine they would still put them in envelopes after counting the relevent votes).
"Makes me wonder what you do when one of your customers calls. "Wanna buy something? Ok, fill in these forms and wait 4 months. Then you may get it... Or not." You wouldn't stay in business for long that way..."
I don't know, seems like a lot of companies operate this way and stay in business-if the amount of hoops I have to jump through to get information/prices/etc from some companies are any indication....
"You need an efficient fusion power plant to 'burn' the stuff in and convert the heat to electrical energy."
You actually need an operating fusion power plant first. Best estimates I have seen: 20 years away, aka, energy source of the future and always will be... Not much point worrying about HE3 on the lunar surface before we are sure we can use it.
"On another note I fail to see how the german laws you cite are any more stifling to free speech than laws prohibiting libel. Neonazism is tightly coupled to malicious defamation of jews - according to the laws of most countries that constitutes libel. Mentioning neonazism explicitly in the law just serves to simplify libel lawsuits."
So, why have them then? To make things easier is not a very good reason. After all, the USA Patriot Act merely makes certain police activities easier.... With regular libel laws you have to prove harm at some level-speech is a lot more protected. Even the speech that I think has no redeeming value...
"Since you bring up up germany; do you sincerely beleive that a law designed to stop antisemitic propaganda is just as bad as a law that, say, limits the civil liberties of an ethnic minority like jews (or kurds for that matter)."
Well, no. But the former isn't a GOOD law either. You can't legislate morality/ethics.
"Cipro is rarely used past two weeks at the most."
We have different definitions of rarely or you are ignorant. For some types of infections, 4 weeks or LONGER are common.
"He's also trying to order his own invasive testing!"
Umm, so what? If you didn't know this, doctors are NOT in charge of your treatment. The PATIENTS determine treatment. Hell, I have asked for invasive treatments before for non life threatening medical conditions. Sure a doctor can say no. But they can't do anything without your consent. Doctors are essentially consultants.
"Someone needs to intervene, and fast"
I agree, I think someone needs to apply a clue-by-four to your head. Repeatedly. Feel free to self-administer the treatment:)
"Only if your doct is NOT willing to work with you and is clearly not going to help you make progress should you move to another."
Sorry, don't agree. I have had doctors that while they don't hinder they don't help much. I only go to them when I need X and I know that they are willing to prescribe it (medicine/tests/etc). Better doctors move faster.
"Assume he knows more than you though, because he does."
Huh? You have got to be kidding. He MIGHT know more than you on certain subjects-common ones. If you know a GP better able to treat my migraines (in other words, knows more than me-in the Columbus, OH area), please let me know. My better doctors realized I knew more than they did (with regards to my chronic illnesses). Sure they gave suggestions when I asked but that's it.
For common ailments, yeah, they know more than me. But most common ailments don't need to be treated by a doctor (flu, cold, cuts, sprains, etc.) It is a waste of time and money.
Look, in the end, doctors are consultants. They work for YOU. If it is a medically reasonable request and they won't do it, they aren't worth keeping. And "medically reasonable" is pretty large, especially if you are willing to pay for it (in the area of tests....)
"So... how do you tell the difference between a hypochrondriac and someone with no apparent symptoms except massive discomfort?"
Umm, become a good doctor? I mean, if you can't tell the difference as a doctor, do one of two things: 1. treat all your patients (don't assume your patients are lying) 2. if you can't do number 1, do your profession a favor and leave it.
I only go to a doctor when I need to (my life is severely impacted), yet I am rarely treated for things like severe pain (outside of an emergency room). A lot of doctors if they can't see it, it doesn't exist. Those types of doctors, frankly, suck. You don't penalize patients who need treatment because some fake it (intentionally or unintentionally).
Slashdot Mirror
"Of course people don't call it censorship when they approve of the censoring."
Often true.
"Apparently, because liberals have been doing it for years. Gender equity, more "color" in positive roles, less smoking, etc and so on."
And this is censorship how? Will the government fine you, hold up applications, not renew applications if you don't do these things? Pressure, definitely. Censorship, I don't see it.
To expand, discrimination based on color and gender is illegal (something to do with the US constitution perhaps....), so I hardly see how encouraging equity is censorhip. Banning gender and racial discrimination is hardly "censorship" as discussed here (sure, it could be considered a type of it). In other words, let's get off the "liberal" bogeyman. I suspect a heck of a lot of "conservatives" would support the same goals (at least that's my impression when I hear them speak).
Maybe.
Yeah, it is silly to argue about it.
But it goes to a deeper problem. Gore lied. Or at least didn't tell the truth. He exaggerated for political gain (didn't work in this case...) He became the poster boy for this type of thing.
I only wish other statements by other politicians, employers, employees, and people in general were held to the same standard. The world would be a better place if lying and exaggerating were "punished" in this way.
"You have to either be intellectually dishonest, or dumb as a bag of hammers to assume he was inventing the internet."
I don't think anyone assumed that (at least I hope not...) That was his problem. I assumed (or supected) he was exaggerating his accomplishments(aka lying). I see no reason to reward this. Although I understand why he did it.
And in you mayor example, I would have the same reaction "What an f'ing idiot". He didn't clean squat, he merely hired more people to clean the streets, why didn't he say so. Look, many people would like their politicians to tell the truth, I am one of them (many more say they do but their actions say otherwise).
Why couldn't Gore have said "I pushed through the legislation that funded the internet" or "I helped fund the startup of the internet" if you want a shorter quote. It would have been true. And if misquoted, he would have had a case....
Gore was misquoted. But I suspect he wanted to be-he wanted his accomplishments to be seen as more impressive than they were. But he got burned. I think this is a good thing. I just wish it would happen more often.
"When a politician claims to have taken "the initiative in creating" something, a reasonable person would assume he means he allocated funding for it."
Why? Politicians are incapable of being inventors? There are no scientists who are also politicians?
When a politician takes credit for something, I don't assume it is merely funding. Legislation does things other than funding!
Personally, when they take credit for something, I assume they are likely exaggerating their accomplishments. Hell, maybe they actually believe it. In any case, for the most part, I tune that out and lose respect (after all, how many take credit when their legislation goes bad....that I would respect).
"But Pope Julius the II would not have been wrong to say, "I took the initiative in creating the paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.""
Well, maybe not wrong. But it is not a "good" phrase, unless you are TRYING to confuse people. It would be more accurate (and informative) to say "I commissioned the paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel".
"And even if he did say that, nobody would be believe that he was the one doing the painting."
Yes. And no one believed Gore either. But many believed he WAS trying to take credit for something he didn't do and reacted accordingly....
"If you ever wonder why politicians so often sound like robots when they are speaking in public, this is why..."
No. It is because they don't want to offend anyone, it works, AND they don't want to add any ammo to their opponents. Most legislators have records that can be easily twisted anyway....
Look, all he had to do was tell the truth. But he exaggerated. PROBABLY ON PURPOSE (he was a politician trying to get attention, look hip, and elected). And it backfired.
If he had stated that he took the inititiative in creating the legislation that funded the creation of the internet and that was twisted, I would agree with you. But he didn't.
"What Gore said was poorly worded, but true."
Bullsh$t! He didn't create anything but a piece of legislation.
"If Gore hadn't pushed for funding of the National Science Foundation to create nsfnet, the Internet wouldn't exist in the manner it is today."
And you know this how?
"Just change "took the initiative in creating the internet" with "ran the initiative to fund the creation of the internet" and you have a sentence that means the exact same thing yet can't be misinterpreted."
No, it doesn't mean the same thing. The first one says he did it (or at least implies he did) - you know, invent the protocols, install the hardware, etc. The second one states his role accurately. Of course, it doesn't sound nearly as impressive to "joe sixpack". Sure, he PROBABLY meant the second when he stated the first but as he was a seasoned politician running for president, I strongly suspect he wanted it to be misinterpreted (although in a POSITIVE way).
Let's see, you say the quote was "widely distorted" but I disagree. The transcript (assuming it is correct, etc, etc) states Gore said:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Now reporters saying that "Gore said he invented the internet" is not too far fetched. Sure, created might have been better but so what (not nearly the worst summary I have ever seen by a reporter....)
Note that Gore didn't say he supported the legislation that funded it. Indirectly, in the next sentence, yes, but not directly. Gore set himself up for this-he knew reporters would likely summarize his statement (he wasn't new to the game) and he overreached and got burned.
And note what you said:
"and that the funding Gore helped push through Congress was critical to the project."
In any case, it probably would have happened without him. Look, I know why he made the quote-in the Congress you are not seen as directly responsible for any piece of legislation even if you were critical to it. So you have to make it known. Unlike the president who gets to sign every piece of legislation (see, I supported it....) Legislation is a team sport, when it is good everyone likes to take credit, when it is bad, nobody is responsible...
"When you move to unionized protection for the workforce, you are essentially mandating compensation for producers to be normalized."
I'm curious, but when someone mentions the word "union" why does logic suddenly seem to disappear? I am not picking on you alone but why does compensation have to be the same for everyone in a union? As a matter of fact, could you point me to one real life example where ALL members of a union are compensated EXACTLY the same?
A union is a bargaining unit run by its members, as such it doesn't have to dictate compensation. Heck, union members could even be fired for not meeting certain levels of production, so no more crappy coders....
"If you can accomplish more in 2 hours than your coworkers, should you need to put in a full workday to be compensated the same as they are?"
So, how is this REALLY different from now. Are the best programmers recognized? Are they paid five times as much? If your pay is the same, can you only show up two hours a day and not be fired? Or are most companies clueless? So what was your point again?
"I'm not convinced that the traditional model of collective bargaining is a great solution to this problem."
So why does it have to be traditional?
"Why on Earth would you think it's a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to tell a BUSINESS how to do whatever it does? That is incredibly short-sighted and anti-freedom."
Are you kidding? I mean really? If the company is protected from competition, is a natural monopoly, and given tax dollars then, yes, it is a good idea. If the company is a good citizen, then no. But I suspect there aren't many of those. After all, government tell citizens what they can and cannot do every day and if I am not mistaken, corporations are people too....
"How about the companies decide how to roll out the services they're going to provide, and the people decide which company gets their business, and the company that provides the best service wins?"
Hey, that would be great. Really. Which fantasy world does this happen in? Because I would like to move....
I don't think the scientists doing the research have ignored the "moral/ethical quagmire". There are fairly stringent ethical controls on experiments. It is just that some people don't agree with those....
After all, if it was so "bad", why didn't Bush ban all research on the existing lines? Perhaps to attempt to look good to everyone (while ending essentially ending research in the US but not the so-called ethical/moral dilemma?)
"In a different subject, I think that the problem with embryonic stem cell research is its potential to undermine human dignity."
You don't get out much do you? If you really think this has a great potential to undermine human dignity, I give you exhibit A, the world as it is today....
"So if what you want is usable stem cell therapy, you have two choices. You can call the people you disagree with names, which accomplishes nothing, or you can stop trying to fight a losing battle and get on with what matters, which is the actual research."
And how is effectively banning a promising line of research going to help? Those who believe life begins at conception won't change their mind-it is a matter of faith. Sure, calling them names won't help but don't think for a minute that their minds CAN be changed. Oh, and the reality is that the treatment will be researched elsewhere (your false dichotomy not withstanding).
"In practice, people who believe that life begins at conception _also_ want stem cell therapy."
My suspicion is that VERY FEW people would refuse treatment if the stem cells came from a source that violated their ethical standards. I would actually respect those people. I don't respect people who restrict science based on their particular set of moral standards. If non-embryonic tissue will work, I'm sure researchers will use it. If it won't, just don't use the treatments.
The problem is that some people are bothered when other people are free to make choices that they don't agree with.
"Um... Isaac Newton invented calculus when he was still a student at Trinity College."
"There was no government funding involved in his inventing calculus, sorry."
Oh, I see. And Cambridge University wasn't supported by any government at the time, was it. I mean, it had no support at all from England and its King at the time...
"God does give us free will."
Excellent. I opt out of the system. Thank you.
"If you do what God says is wrong, you can expect that there will be consequences."
Hmm, see above.
"To suggest that it's merely a collection of stories on a par with mother goose is a bit...unreasonable."
Why? I mean there is more sex, violence, and of course, genocide. And it has some historical content. But other than that, why exactly?
"If embryos are human beings, then it is immoral to manipulate or destroy them for personal benefit. It would clearly be wrong to kill a one-month old (that is, one month after birth) even if the tissue you harvested from them could save 100 people."
But would it be immoral? I mean we regularly execute people for killing one person (or not even killing someone but being an accomplice) in the hopes that this will convince others not to commit murder (best case-in reality it is closer to revenge...) I mean if it is moral to kill a murderer, something that will not save anybody's life, why would the death of a baby (or fetus) that could save 100 people be considered immoral?
We place a value on human life all the time (aka cost benefit analyis)-is this immoral? Government/ private enterprise/people regularly make decisions that cost peoples lives for the sake of money, yet we don't hear the same outcry? Why exactly? These apparent contradictions have always interested me.
"It really isn't as simple an issue as the rhetoric would have you believe..."
You certainly got that right!
"This does not mean Freedom From Religion, that means Freedom Of Religion (like it reads), that the government needs to stop telling people that they cannot bring their symbols into schools and work, that the schools need to teach an objectively balanced education (as opposed to atheist) when it comes to religion."
So, does this mean I can bring in pentagrams to school if I worship Satan? Advocate animal sacrifice? Advocate that there is no God? Etc? Extreme examples in some cases, but I am curious if you REALLY mean what you say. Because in my experience, most people with your point of view really mean "I should be free to bring Christian symbols into work and school". If one can bring ANY religious/cult symbology in, I wouldn't have a problem.
Oh, and BTW, how would one teach religion in an atheist manner? Can't say I have ever heard of that in schools.
"This is why I like the solution of machine generated, but human readable paper ballots. I think it can help cut down on ballot spoilage, which is often pointed to as evidence of political bias (and probably IS sometimes caused by political bias)."
And what amount of error will machines add to the process? There is no point reducing error in one process and adding it in another. And machines WILL add error, don't assume otherwise.
It is very simple, you don't read the instructions, your vote may not be counted. It sucks but that's life. Maybe that will encourage people to ask questions and read the instructions.
"But each ballot contains votes for many different candidates."
Yes, but generally only one race is being recounted... A reasonable person would assume that this step would be slightly different if multiple recounts were going on (well, I imagine they would still put them in envelopes after counting the relevent votes).
"Makes me wonder what you do when one of your customers calls. "Wanna buy something? Ok, fill in these forms and wait 4 months. Then you may get it... Or not." You wouldn't stay in business for long that way..."
I don't know, seems like a lot of companies operate this way and stay in business-if the amount of hoops I have to jump through to get information/prices/etc from some companies are any indication....
"You need an efficient fusion power plant to 'burn' the stuff in and convert the heat to electrical energy."
You actually need an operating fusion power plant first. Best estimates I have seen: 20 years away, aka, energy source of the future and always will be... Not much point worrying about HE3 on the lunar surface before we are sure we can use it.
"On another note I fail to see how the german laws you cite are any more stifling to free speech than laws prohibiting libel. Neonazism is tightly coupled to malicious defamation of jews - according to the laws of most countries that constitutes libel. Mentioning neonazism explicitly in the law just serves to simplify libel lawsuits."
So, why have them then? To make things easier is not a very good reason. After all, the USA Patriot Act merely makes certain police activities easier.... With regular libel laws you have to prove harm at some level-speech is a lot more protected. Even the speech that I think has no redeeming value...
"Since you bring up up germany; do you sincerely beleive that a law designed to stop antisemitic propaganda is just as bad as a law that, say, limits the civil liberties of an ethnic minority like jews (or kurds for that matter)."
Well, no. But the former isn't a GOOD law either. You can't legislate morality/ethics.
Time to feed the troll :)
:)
"Cipro is rarely used past two weeks at the most."
We have different definitions of rarely or you are ignorant. For some types of infections, 4 weeks or LONGER are common.
"He's also trying to order his own invasive testing!"
Umm, so what? If you didn't know this, doctors are NOT in charge of your treatment. The PATIENTS determine treatment. Hell, I have asked for invasive treatments before for non life threatening medical conditions. Sure a doctor can say no. But they can't do anything without your consent. Doctors are essentially consultants.
"Someone needs to intervene, and fast"
I agree, I think someone needs to apply a clue-by-four to your head. Repeatedly. Feel free to self-administer the treatment
"Only if your doct is NOT willing to work with you and is clearly not going to help you make progress should you move to another."
Sorry, don't agree. I have had doctors that while they don't hinder they don't help much. I only go to them when I need X and I know that they are willing to prescribe it (medicine/tests/etc). Better doctors move faster.
"Assume he knows more than you though, because he does."
Huh? You have got to be kidding. He MIGHT know more than you on certain subjects-common ones. If you know a GP better able to treat my migraines (in other words, knows more than me-in the Columbus, OH area), please let me know. My better doctors realized I knew more than they did (with regards to my chronic illnesses). Sure they gave suggestions when I asked but that's it.
For common ailments, yeah, they know more than me. But most common ailments don't need to be treated by a doctor (flu, cold, cuts, sprains, etc.) It is a waste of time and money.
Look, in the end, doctors are consultants. They work for YOU. If it is a medically reasonable request and they won't do it, they aren't worth keeping. And "medically reasonable" is pretty large, especially if you are willing to pay for it (in the area of tests....)
"So... how do you tell the difference between a hypochrondriac and someone with no apparent symptoms except massive discomfort?"
Umm, become a good doctor? I mean, if you can't tell the difference as a doctor, do one of two things:
1. treat all your patients (don't assume your patients are lying)
2. if you can't do number 1, do your profession a favor and leave it.
I only go to a doctor when I need to (my life is severely impacted), yet I am rarely treated for things like severe pain (outside of an emergency room). A lot of doctors if they can't see it, it doesn't exist. Those types of doctors, frankly, suck. You don't penalize patients who need treatment because some fake it (intentionally or unintentionally).