> How many kids don't get to eat at school so that someone gets this treatment
I never ate at school (our school did not have stupid lunch programs like USA schools). I would much rather get ALS treatment than lunch at school though.
So... 7m raise in sea levels is OK for you if it doesn't hurt you personally?
No. The impression that was created was that the 7 meter raise in sea levels was an imminent threat (it isnâ(TM)t). I personally think that we should worry about the 100 year horizon. In 1000 the world will be a completely different place (technology wise).
Al Goreâ(TM)s movie was nothing but misrepresented propaganda. I watched his movie and came under the impression that we are screwed. At one point he very dramatically illustrates that see levels will rise by 7 meters. What he conveniently left out was that it will happen in *a millennium*. This is nothing but a documentary by a Micheal Moore environmentalist.
I believe that global warming is real and that something should be done. But I doubt a collection of half truths and over-reaction will be helpful. A calm and rational approach would be much better.
> If I worded the question as "do you support using fluid from umbilical cords to research cures for paralysis" how many people do you think would object to stem cell research? Almost none? Then people don't have a problem with the research. If you word the question as "do you support killing babies to perform experiments on their dead bodies that have no proven scientific benefit?"
You are constructing a strawman argument. With ambilical cord stem cells no fetus/embryo is destroyed. With embryonic stem cells it is. That is why it is morally contentious. I do not know any person that objects to ambilical cord stem cells.
> The opposition was almost exclusively religious opposition to reproductive choices, and had nothing to do with stem cells or morals or science.
No. The oppositions were because the embryos were destroyed which is morally contentious. Even Obama recognised that there is a moral aspect to this debate. I do not consider myself religious but I do not think that tax money should be used to fund something that is morally contentious.
You are sure they can, but they didn't, so on this, and all other points so far, you have been proven false.
Well, if they didnâ(TM)t it is not those that oppose federal fundingâ(TM)s fault. Federal funding is also banned for abortions yet the private industry seems to fill that void nicely.
Are you for or against embryonic stem cell research?
I am for private embryonic stem cell research (although I believe that therapeutic use will probably come from stem cells derived from other means). I do not support anything by the government that further divides and polarises the population.
Are you against controversial things because you are against this one, or are you also against the military because many people believe we don't need a standing army?
The vast majority of the population do not find the army morally reprehensible. But I am against spending 10% of GDP on the military. Japan has a good model for a military.
If everything controversial didn't get funded, there wouldn't even be public schools, and we'd have more homeless and more crime, and what happens with more criminals and those that object to prisons as punishment?
You construct another strawman. No-one finds the criminal justice system or the school system morally contentious.
To suggest that nothing that anyone disagrees with should be funded is the same as caling for anarchy.
Where did I claim that nothing should be funded? Have you noticed that the USA is the most polarised country in the world? Do you know why that is?
Bush listed some lines to be funded and made it nearly impossible for any organization that experimented with the other lines to get funding for anything of any kind.
The government never tried to block private funding. I personally believe that the government should not fund anything which a large section of the population finds morally reprehensible.
Embryonic stem cell research is an extremely small part of all stem cell research (or research as a whole). I am sure that private institutions can pick up the slack.
The alternative is for people to use the government as a vehicle of their ideology and dividing the public even more.
I'm sorry, is it no longer politically correct to only mention an example of conservative stupidity without mentioning one of liberal stupidity?
Most online forums turn into an eco-chamber. Since the above poster noted about the misconceptions of conservatives regarding stem cells I think it is only prudent to show that the liberalsâ(TM) misconception is also as great.
The flipside is also completely true. Most liberals believed that Bush "made stem cell research illegal". The fact of the matter is that he only made *federal funding for embryonic stem cells that are not in the presidential lines* illegal.
Good luck finding someone who understands that. Most people on the left would rather scream that GWB killed Superman by making stem cell research illegal.
and dairy cows are basically kept in a pen slightly larger than their bodies,
I donâ(TM)t know if it is different there, but I have never seen dairy cows kept in a pen. They are usually just milked in a pen and they sleep under a roof. But usually they can walk around.
Most cattle are what we call âoefree rangeâ. As I understand it, it is only in the USA where cows are in feedlots to ensure âoeX disease free days before slaughter. Usually cows are just in feedlots for an extremely short time.
At least where I live, keeping cattle in feedlots is extremely expensive. Cattle go directly from the farm to the abattoir.
Uhm... You know that you grossly overstated the effects of global warming. If we continue at the current rate, sea levels will rise by about 11 centimeter in *2100*. It will certainly not be as dramatic rise (i.e. island under water) by 2050 as you would predict. I personally feel that we will be better equipped to tackle global warming in 2050.
So why not continue developing at the current pace and start working on the problem in say 2050?
IMHO Most private schools work so good because they don't have to, and generally wont take the lower/less motivated or troubled students.
Not always. Where I live there is a private school group (semi-religious). They have much better motivated teachers and a better student teacher ratio. What happens often is that parents will sent only their problem child to the school and keep their other child in a public school. So no â" private schools are not just for the âoeeliteâ.
I went to a public school (my parents could not afford the private school). Do you know how big pain in the ass it was? My parents had to fight to get me to take mathematics at higher grade (necessary for engineering). I had to study that and two other subjects by myself because I did not have a teacher (they were all more busy with those with lower life ambitions such as alcoholism and plumbing).
If my parents could use the money that the school wasted and sent me to a private school I would be much better off.
This is not a option for public schools.
One of the problems with public schools is that schools are not allowed to kick people out. Education is a privilege â" not a right. If you do not want to learn you should not waste money. There was a guy in my school who spent 6 years in the same grade. That was 6 years where he disrupted classes and had a negative impact on all the other students.
Following you plan will effectively give the Japanese style education
If you look at TIMMS you will notice that the average Japanese student is much better in mathematics than the average USA student.
This doesn't affect my argument that many will choose the really non scientific religious schools then funded by all tax payers, regardless the value of the education given.
Religious schools are often better than public schools. A good example is the numerous catholic schools. And yet â" public schools do not value education. At best it breeds a culture of mediocrity and entitlement â" by all accounts worse than religion.
nope, proper education is in the best interest of society.
You know that the public school system does not really offer âoeproperâ education?
If they are rich enough to pay for private schooling and taxes, then the odds are great that kid won't fall out of the economic system.
Why should someone who wants to send their kid to a private school pay double?
If your not, then we need to encourage those kids to get a education that meets society's standards, not some "the bible says this" education.
By societies standards you mean your standards? You know that public schooling system is so watered down (in all countries) that it caters for the lowest common denominator? The public school system caters for the bottom 20% and it drags down (inadvertently perhaps) the other 80% of students.
Even if a school were to teach evolution, it would comprise less than 1% of the curriculum. The problem is that public schools already fail with the other 99%.
In most countries public schools also fill 5% with propaganda supporting the current ruling majorities view (a good example is the selective use of history).
But church's already prevent more tax money from getting to state/schools coffers,
That is an over generalised and baseless statement. What is ironic is that there are a lot of private schools who spends less per child than government schools and their results are much better. A top private school where I live offers religious classes â"if you are Muslim or Christian (various denominations) you can take those classes. If you are atheist you can take other classes (philosophy). I guess they should also not get funding?
Btw, even if you were to throw more money at the problem, government schools will still fail.
You know that parents with children also pay taxes? Don't you think that they would like their money to be spent on the school that they see best?
Religious or not - people should have a choice. In my country the best schooling system is actually a religious one. I would even send my child there although I am not religious. A good quality religious school is better than a normal government school.
In the end I fully expect to retire early. My goal is to retire 1 year early.
Dude, you have the completely wrong approach. Progressive taxation increase significantly when you earn more. The trick isnâ(TM)t to retire earlier â" it is to retire later. You can spend more of your life as âoeme timeâ if you take large unpaid vacations. (30-50 days per year).
The idea of working harder is wrong â" the harder you work the less you will see. And if you take unpaid vacations now, you will enjoy your free time more than when you are elderly and sick.
Slashdot Mirror
> How many kids don't get to eat at school so that someone gets this treatment
I never ate at school (our school did not have stupid lunch programs like USA schools). I would much rather get ALS treatment than lunch at school though.
So... 7m raise in sea levels is OK for you if it doesn't hurt you personally?
No. The impression that was created was that the 7 meter raise in sea levels was an imminent threat (it isnâ(TM)t). I personally think that we should worry about the 100 year horizon. In 1000 the world will be a completely different place (technology wise).
I was wondering how long it would take the anti-global-warming fringe to latch
I thought that we were all against global warming (even Al Gore)?
Al Goreâ(TM)s movie was nothing but misrepresented propaganda. I watched his movie and came under the impression that we are screwed. At one point he very dramatically illustrates that see levels will rise by 7 meters. What he conveniently left out was that it will happen in *a millennium*. This is nothing but a documentary by a Micheal Moore environmentalist.
I believe that global warming is real and that something should be done. But I doubt a collection of half truths and over-reaction will be helpful. A calm and rational approach would be much better.
Basically, the very ppl, neo-cons, that ran up the vast majority of the debt are attending it and trying to point the finger at obama.
You seem to ignore that fact that the vast majority of the debt was run up under a Democrat controlled congress.
Not until you hit the monkey with the boxing glove. Common, we know you want to.
> If I worded the question as "do you support using fluid from umbilical cords to research cures for paralysis" how many people do you think would object to stem cell research? Almost none? Then people don't have a problem with the research. If you word the question as "do you support killing babies to perform experiments on their dead bodies that have no proven scientific benefit?"
You are constructing a strawman argument. With ambilical cord stem cells no fetus/embryo is destroyed. With embryonic stem cells it is. That is why it is morally contentious. I do not know any person that objects to ambilical cord stem cells.
> The opposition was almost exclusively religious opposition to reproductive choices, and had nothing to do with stem cells or morals or science.
No. The oppositions were because the embryos were destroyed which is morally contentious. Even Obama recognised that there is a moral aspect to this debate. I do not consider myself religious but I do not think that tax money should be used to fund something that is morally contentious.
You are sure they can, but they didn't, so on this, and all other points so far, you have been proven false.
Well, if they didnâ(TM)t it is not those that oppose federal fundingâ(TM)s fault. Federal funding is also banned for abortions yet the private industry seems to fill that void nicely.
Are you for or against embryonic stem cell research?
I am for private embryonic stem cell research (although I believe that therapeutic use will probably come from stem cells derived from other means). I do not support anything by the government that further divides and polarises the population.
Are you against controversial things because you are against this one, or are you also against the military because many people believe we don't need a standing army?
The vast majority of the population do not find the army morally reprehensible. But I am against spending 10% of GDP on the military. Japan has a good model for a military.
If everything controversial didn't get funded, there wouldn't even be public schools, and we'd have more homeless and more crime, and what happens with more criminals and those that object to prisons as punishment?
You construct another strawman. No-one finds the criminal justice system or the school system morally contentious.
To suggest that nothing that anyone disagrees with should be funded is the same as caling for anarchy.
Where did I claim that nothing should be funded? Have you noticed that the USA is the most polarised country in the world? Do you know why that is?
Bush listed some lines to be funded and made it nearly impossible for any organization that experimented with the other lines to get funding for anything of any kind.
The government never tried to block private funding. I personally believe that the government should not fund anything which a large section of the population finds morally reprehensible.
Embryonic stem cell research is an extremely small part of all stem cell research (or research as a whole). I am sure that private institutions can pick up the slack.
The alternative is for people to use the government as a vehicle of their ideology and dividing the public even more.
I'm sorry, is it no longer politically correct to only mention an example of conservative stupidity without mentioning one of liberal stupidity?
Most online forums turn into an eco-chamber. Since the above poster noted about the misconceptions of conservatives regarding stem cells I think it is only prudent to show that the liberalsâ(TM) misconception is also as great.
Non-government funding is good for those rare situations when you want something from research and you know exactly how to get there,
I would argue that non-governmental funding is also for something that a large percentage of the population finds morally contentious.
You can't recycle the fuel indefinitely, eventually you will have waste. And eventually it needs to be dealt with.
Yes. And that waste in incredibly small with a lifetime of 200 years.
The flipside is also completely true. Most liberals believed that Bush "made stem cell research illegal". The fact of the matter is that he only made *federal funding for embryonic stem cells that are not in the presidential lines* illegal.
Good luck finding someone who understands that. Most people on the left would rather scream that GWB killed Superman by making stem cell research illegal.
Because they made a policy decision to do so based on their particular economic situation and resources
AFAIK it is more a question of the absence of large and cheap coal reserves. Germany wanted the Ruhr back after all.
Per Capita China probably doesn't have as much (even if they produce way more than the USA). The biggest country for that is probably Australia.
You are completely right that ALF lives in a spaceship and are not from this planet. He also likes cats.
Although I am not quite clear on why he would do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALF_(TV_series)
I think it differs from country to country...
In my country it is too expensive to feed cattle just in a feedlot. But in the USA it is probably cheaper (subsidized maize).
and dairy cows are basically kept in a pen slightly larger than their bodies,
I donâ(TM)t know if it is different there, but I have never seen dairy cows kept in a pen. They are usually just milked in a pen and they sleep under a roof. But usually they can walk around.
Most cattle are what we call âoefree rangeâ. As I understand it, it is only in the USA where cows are in feedlots to ensure âoeX disease free days before slaughter. Usually cows are just in feedlots for an extremely short time.
At least where I live, keeping cattle in feedlots is extremely expensive. Cattle go directly from the farm to the abattoir.
Uhm... You know that you grossly overstated the effects of global warming. If we continue at the current rate, sea levels will rise by about 11 centimeter in *2100*. It will certainly not be as dramatic rise (i.e. island under water) by 2050 as you would predict. I personally feel that we will be better equipped to tackle global warming in 2050.
So why not continue developing at the current pace and start working on the problem in say 2050?
If Soyuz has a severe problem during landing, it ends up in another country.
If the Shuttle has a severe problem during landing, it ends up in different countries.
IMHO Most private schools work so good because they don't have to, and generally wont take the lower/less motivated or troubled students.
Not always. Where I live there is a private school group (semi-religious). They have much better motivated teachers and a better student teacher ratio. What happens often is that parents will sent only their problem child to the school and keep their other child in a public school. So no â" private schools are not just for the âoeeliteâ.
I went to a public school (my parents could not afford the private school). Do you know how big pain in the ass it was? My parents had to fight to get me to take mathematics at higher grade (necessary for engineering). I had to study that and two other subjects by myself because I did not have a teacher (they were all more busy with those with lower life ambitions such as alcoholism and plumbing).
If my parents could use the money that the school wasted and sent me to a private school I would be much better off.
This is not a option for public schools.
One of the problems with public schools is that schools are not allowed to kick people out. Education is a privilege â" not a right. If you do not want to learn you should not waste money. There was a guy in my school who spent 6 years in the same grade. That was 6 years where he disrupted classes and had a negative impact on all the other students.
Following you plan will effectively give the Japanese style education
If you look at TIMMS you will notice that the average Japanese student is much better in mathematics than the average USA student.
This doesn't affect my argument that many will choose the really non scientific religious schools then funded by all tax payers, regardless the value of the education given.
Religious schools are often better than public schools. A good example is the numerous catholic schools. And yet â" public schools do not value education. At best it breeds a culture of mediocrity and entitlement â" by all accounts worse than religion.
nope, proper education is in the best interest of society.
You know that the public school system does not really offer âoeproperâ education?
If they are rich enough to pay for private schooling and taxes, then the odds are great that kid won't fall out of the economic system.
Why should someone who wants to send their kid to a private school pay double?
If your not, then we need to encourage those kids to get a education that meets society's standards, not some "the bible says this" education.
By societies standards you mean your standards? You know that public schooling system is so watered down (in all countries) that it caters for the lowest common denominator? The public school system caters for the bottom 20% and it drags down (inadvertently perhaps) the other 80% of students.
Even if a school were to teach evolution, it would comprise less than 1% of the curriculum. The problem is that public schools already fail with the other 99%.
In most countries public schools also fill 5% with propaganda supporting the current ruling majorities view (a good example is the selective use of history). But church's already prevent more tax money from getting to state/schools coffers,
That is an over generalised and baseless statement. What is ironic is that there are a lot of private schools who spends less per child than government schools and their results are much better. A top private school where I live offers religious classes â"if you are Muslim or Christian (various denominations) you can take those classes. If you are atheist you can take other classes (philosophy). I guess they should also not get funding?
Btw, even if you were to throw more money at the problem, government schools will still fail.
You know that parents with children also pay taxes? Don't you think that they would like their money to be spent on the school that they see best?
Religious or not - people should have a choice. In my country the best schooling system is actually a religious one. I would even send my child there although I am not religious. A good quality religious school is better than a normal government school.
Slashdot has grown way, way, beyond it's Linux / Buffy / Anime roots, as has "geekdom" itself
What is this Linux you speak of?
Asian drivers are brilliant. Drivers in China have mad skills to both create and avoid accidents.
In the west we just follow the traffic rules - it is much simpler.
In the end I fully expect to retire early. My goal is to retire 1 year early.
Dude, you have the completely wrong approach. Progressive taxation increase significantly when you earn more. The trick isnâ(TM)t to retire earlier â" it is to retire later. You can spend more of your life as âoeme timeâ if you take large unpaid vacations. (30-50 days per year).
The idea of working harder is wrong â" the harder you work the less you will see. And if you take unpaid vacations now, you will enjoy your free time more than when you are elderly and sick.