What utility "should" it have that is missing? How do you define "should"? I'm guessing that by "should", you mean "I would want it to have if I were to buy it, which I won't be doing anyway on principle". But "should"? I mean beyond a steering wheel, an enclosed body, seatbelts, lights, wheels and an engine, is there that much that a car "should" have?
"Just as nice" is entirely subjective. If your subjective definition of "nice" includes "no significant engine sound and no tailpipe emissions but a 200 mile range", then there is no "nice" alternative to the Tesla at any price. Obviously, *your* definition of "nice" doesn't include these things, but other people's definitions do, and I don't see why you should privilege your definition over theirs.
Well, you can't look at the tables and say 50 miles is enough for most. But you can look at the data and say that. Very few people have travel requirements of 250 miles in a single day each week (or even most weeks). Most people aren't university students, and most university students don't drive home fortnightly. There are lots of edge cases where 50miles per day isn't enough, but there are even more non-edge cases where it is.
You maybe attuned to English; however, you are an ineffective communicator because you're unable to choose le mot juste. It's not as though a better choice of word was unavailable. You just couldn't think of it, and now you're trying to justify your poor choice through discussion of normative and descriptive linguistics.
I get that. But you implied there was a causative link: if the private sector spends money on X, then the government will spend less money. Hence why I asked if there was some kind of law you were invoking, eg an economic dictum.
As I said, prevalent does not mean what you think it means. I understood the intent behind your sentence perfectly well. I just despaired, ever so slightly, about your mangling of the English language.
Wikipedia is quite good on sovereign default. I think the limits of the analogy with households start to break down quite rapidly, because public debt is more subtle and complex.
Yes, the point of being a sovereign is you get to say "here's the deal, and I'm going to stick with it" -- in the case of Argentina, a 70% haircut for creditors. And then that gets priced into the cost of new loans you try to get. The vultures are trying to socialize their losses, though they pretend they're free marketeers.
That's the great thing about being a sovereign. People can sue you, and even in extremis freeze your assets on foreign soil. But you still don't have to pay, and you have a military to back you up, and you can seize assets right back if they're based on your turf. The Supreme Court's decision is, imho, idiotic.
Well, if that's what you meant, why didn't you write it that in the first place? Because you said that the Syriza government was responsible for the destruction of the Greek economy, which is very different from what you're now saying, and factually incorrect.
(And the notion that the Greek populace aren't *already* experience "an extreme amount of pain" is ludicrous. Youth unemployment above 50%. 11,000 suicides attributed to the economic contraction. Pensions down by half. Wages by a third. Running out of food and medicines. Etc)
You *must* be taking the piss, right? You can't honestly be saying with a straight face that the Syriza government, which has been in power for all of six months, was responsible for the wholesale destruction of the Greek economy, can you? Are you even aware that it was the Troika and the previous government who colluded on a ludicrous austerity regime that resulted in the economy contracting by a *quarter*?
Plus, Greece was among the countries that agreed to cancel German debts in 1953! The bloody *chuztpah* of Germany now refusing to countenance doing the same. I mean, Greece may have had corrupt governments in the last few decades and allowed too many people to retire at age 55, but that's not exactly in the same league of disgusting behaviour as starting a fucking world war and murdering tens of millions. If Greece can forgive the latter and the debts caused by the latter, you'd think Germany could forgive the former.
Nearly, but not quite. Somehow, the idiots who run the Eurozone thought it would be a good idea to socialize the ibankers' losses. If Greece defaults, the banks won't lose out, as they have had their money from the ECB etc. Instead, it will be the troika, and Eurozone populations, who will take the bath. Utter, utter madness.
You do understand that the purpose of monetary union was supposed to be to integrate the countries and economies of the Eurozone, right? A bailout of Greece should be considered internal to the Eurozone. It's not a foreign bailout. One of the most invidious aspects of this whole debacle has been that a project designed to reduce nationalism is now being abused by creditors so as to stir up nationalism in both the rich north and poor south of the Eurozone.
Or perhaps -- just perhaps -- your last-but-one post was so idiotically unrelated to the post to which it was nominally responding, that moderators with points ignored it, as I did. I can't speak for the moderators, but I can speak for myself, and that's what I did.
How fucking dim is it possible for one person to be? Mainstream medics know quite a lot, contrary to your ridiculous conspiratorial stance, and one of the things they are very aware of are the limits of what they know and what medicine can and cannot do. By contrast, it's perfectly clear from your citing of your personal anecdote you know very little indeed about what evidence in medicine actually looks like.
Once again, you're spectacularly wrong. I'm not doing this for the sake of argument. I'm doing this because you're advocating for homeopathy -- quackery that could cause people significant harm, if they act on your advice. I'm doing this because you're urging people to put RCTs to one side and trust your anecdotes, when carefully tested evidence is the only way we have to improve medicine reliably. This isn't a game. It's not a joke. It's not about arguments. It's about your potentially hurting other people with your advocacy for fraudulent medicine and not having the decency or integrity to stop.
The garbled nature of your syntax and rich array of non sequiturs are wonderfully apposite for the garbled nature of your thoughts. I'm sure there's some kind of point you had in mind when you wrote all that down, and I'm sure it leaves you thinking you've won the argument, and I wouldn't want to take that lovely feeling away from you because God knows, it's not likely you have that many other consolations in life if this post is anything to go by, so let's just leave it here, shall we?
A reply that: - has nothing to do with homeopathy - has an oncologist saying "you'll be dead within a year" rather than talking about probabilities, survival rates, etc - assumes that Western medicine hasn't recognized (and indeed vigorously sought to exploit) the potential of herbal remedies
Handy hint: this kind of post does not help your cause, cos it makes you look really really dumb
So: - no list of lots of areas where Western medicine isn't better than non-Western - instead, a thrilling explication of phage treatments as a treatment for bacterial infection - plus, as a bonus, a fabulous misunderstanding of what makes an RCT an RCT and why this drives regulation and is in fact a Western idea not an Eastern idea
You could not have chosen a better phrasing than "I have witnessed". Your faith in homeopathy has the same probative value as those people bearing witness to sweet Jesus. And neither prayer nor homeopathy (nor your moral indignation) are going to reverse stage 4 cancer.
People like you are the reason that homeopathy is dangerous. Because you (apparently) genuinely believe that homeopathy is an appropriate treatment for cancer. And some of you will counsel patients to come off their chemo regimes and swap to homeopathy, and you will kill people with your recommendations. Thankfully, sometimes you'll at least confine yourself to making these boneheaded recommendations to patients who are in the terminal stages anyway, when the focus ought to switch to palliative relief and aggressive intervention just wrecks the quality of life in a patient's final days, and may hasten the end. But too often, it'll be for patients where there is substantive chance of the chemo being effective. And that puts the blood of dead patients on your hands.
One of the *few* areas in which Western medicine excels? Do you actually believe that there are many other areas in which non-"Western" medicine excels? If so, perhaps you'd like to share just 10 or 20 examples. I'm very excited to hear of your groundbreaking research! After all, if you could show this, you'd be a Galileo for our times.
Oh, I think it's clear what benefits gay folks get from being able to marry someone of the same gender: it's a two-fer: not only do they get to marry the person they love, just like their straight friends, family and neighbours, they also get to drive narrow minded bigots like your good self to apoplexy. Hopefully a few of you will get sufficiently outraged to keel over, which will be great for the gene pool as well!
Slashdot Mirror
What utility "should" it have that is missing? How do you define "should"? I'm guessing that by "should", you mean "I would want it to have if I were to buy it, which I won't be doing anyway on principle". But "should"? I mean beyond a steering wheel, an enclosed body, seatbelts, lights, wheels and an engine, is there that much that a car "should" have?
"Just as nice" is entirely subjective. If your subjective definition of "nice" includes "no significant engine sound and no tailpipe emissions but a 200 mile range", then there is no "nice" alternative to the Tesla at any price. Obviously, *your* definition of "nice" doesn't include these things, but other people's definitions do, and I don't see why you should privilege your definition over theirs.
Well, you can't look at the tables and say 50 miles is enough for most. But you can look at the data and say that. Very few people have travel requirements of 250 miles in a single day each week (or even most weeks). Most people aren't university students, and most university students don't drive home fortnightly. There are lots of edge cases where 50miles per day isn't enough, but there are even more non-edge cases where it is.
You maybe attuned to English; however, you are an ineffective communicator because you're unable to choose le mot juste. It's not as though a better choice of word was unavailable. You just couldn't think of it, and now you're trying to justify your poor choice through discussion of normative and descriptive linguistics.
I get that. But you implied there was a causative link: if the private sector spends money on X, then the government will spend less money. Hence why I asked if there was some kind of law you were invoking, eg an economic dictum.
As I said, prevalent does not mean what you think it means. I understood the intent behind your sentence perfectly well. I just despaired, ever so slightly, about your mangling of the English language.
Is that some kind of law or something?
*Why* is private generosity "supposed" to decrease public expenditures?
Prevalent does not mean what you think it means.
Wikipedia is quite good on sovereign default. I think the limits of the analogy with households start to break down quite rapidly, because public debt is more subtle and complex.
Yes, the point of being a sovereign is you get to say "here's the deal, and I'm going to stick with it" -- in the case of Argentina, a 70% haircut for creditors. And then that gets priced into the cost of new loans you try to get. The vultures are trying to socialize their losses, though they pretend they're free marketeers.
That's the great thing about being a sovereign. People can sue you, and even in extremis freeze your assets on foreign soil. But you still don't have to pay, and you have a military to back you up, and you can seize assets right back if they're based on your turf. The Supreme Court's decision is, imho, idiotic.
Well, if that's what you meant, why didn't you write it that in the first place? Because you said that the Syriza government was responsible for the destruction of the Greek economy, which is very different from what you're now saying, and factually incorrect.
(And the notion that the Greek populace aren't *already* experience "an extreme amount of pain" is ludicrous. Youth unemployment above 50%. 11,000 suicides attributed to the economic contraction. Pensions down by half. Wages by a third. Running out of food and medicines. Etc)
You have heard of sovereign defaults, right? You know where Iceland is on a map? And you are of course aware of the London debt agreement of 1953?
For practical purposes, sovereigns can of course go bankrupt.
You *must* be taking the piss, right? You can't honestly be saying with a straight face that the Syriza government, which has been in power for all of six months, was responsible for the wholesale destruction of the Greek economy, can you? Are you even aware that it was the Troika and the previous government who colluded on a ludicrous austerity regime that resulted in the economy contracting by a *quarter*?
Plus, Greece was among the countries that agreed to cancel German debts in 1953! The bloody *chuztpah* of Germany now refusing to countenance doing the same. I mean, Greece may have had corrupt governments in the last few decades and allowed too many people to retire at age 55, but that's not exactly in the same league of disgusting behaviour as starting a fucking world war and murdering tens of millions. If Greece can forgive the latter and the debts caused by the latter, you'd think Germany could forgive the former.
Nearly, but not quite. Somehow, the idiots who run the Eurozone thought it would be a good idea to socialize the ibankers' losses. If Greece defaults, the banks won't lose out, as they have had their money from the ECB etc. Instead, it will be the troika, and Eurozone populations, who will take the bath. Utter, utter madness.
You do understand that the purpose of monetary union was supposed to be to integrate the countries and economies of the Eurozone, right? A bailout of Greece should be considered internal to the Eurozone. It's not a foreign bailout. One of the most invidious aspects of this whole debacle has been that a project designed to reduce nationalism is now being abused by creditors so as to stir up nationalism in both the rich north and poor south of the Eurozone.
Perhaps.
Perhaps the moon is made of bacon.
Perhaps you actually have a functioning brain.
Perhaps homeopathy has some medicinal value.
All these statements are equally unlikely.
Or perhaps -- just perhaps -- your last-but-one post was so idiotically unrelated to the post to which it was nominally responding, that moderators with points ignored it, as I did. I can't speak for the moderators, but I can speak for myself, and that's what I did.
How fucking dim is it possible for one person to be? Mainstream medics know quite a lot, contrary to your ridiculous conspiratorial stance, and one of the things they are very aware of are the limits of what they know and what medicine can and cannot do. By contrast, it's perfectly clear from your citing of your personal anecdote you know very little indeed about what evidence in medicine actually looks like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/?titl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://sites.google.com/site/...
Once again, you're spectacularly wrong. I'm not doing this for the sake of argument. I'm doing this because you're advocating for homeopathy -- quackery that could cause people significant harm, if they act on your advice. I'm doing this because you're urging people to put RCTs to one side and trust your anecdotes, when carefully tested evidence is the only way we have to improve medicine reliably. This isn't a game. It's not a joke. It's not about arguments. It's about your potentially hurting other people with your advocacy for fraudulent medicine and not having the decency or integrity to stop.
The garbled nature of your syntax and rich array of non sequiturs are wonderfully apposite for the garbled nature of your thoughts. I'm sure there's some kind of point you had in mind when you wrote all that down, and I'm sure it leaves you thinking you've won the argument, and I wouldn't want to take that lovely feeling away from you because God knows, it's not likely you have that many other consolations in life if this post is anything to go by, so let's just leave it here, shall we?
Excellent.
A reply that:
- has nothing to do with homeopathy
- has an oncologist saying "you'll be dead within a year" rather than talking about probabilities, survival rates, etc
- assumes that Western medicine hasn't recognized (and indeed vigorously sought to exploit) the potential of herbal remedies
Handy hint: this kind of post does not help your cause, cos it makes you look really really dumb
Excellent!
So:
- no list of lots of areas where Western medicine isn't better than non-Western
- instead, a thrilling explication of phage treatments as a treatment for bacterial infection
- plus, as a bonus, a fabulous misunderstanding of what makes an RCT an RCT and why this drives regulation and is in fact a Western idea not an Eastern idea
And you're not the OP
You could not have chosen a better phrasing than "I have witnessed". Your faith in homeopathy has the same probative value as those people bearing witness to sweet Jesus. And neither prayer nor homeopathy (nor your moral indignation) are going to reverse stage 4 cancer.
People like you are the reason that homeopathy is dangerous. Because you (apparently) genuinely believe that homeopathy is an appropriate treatment for cancer. And some of you will counsel patients to come off their chemo regimes and swap to homeopathy, and you will kill people with your recommendations. Thankfully, sometimes you'll at least confine yourself to making these boneheaded recommendations to patients who are in the terminal stages anyway, when the focus ought to switch to palliative relief and aggressive intervention just wrecks the quality of life in a patient's final days, and may hasten the end. But too often, it'll be for patients where there is substantive chance of the chemo being effective. And that puts the blood of dead patients on your hands.
One of the *few* areas in which Western medicine excels? Do you actually believe that there are many other areas in which non-"Western" medicine excels? If so, perhaps you'd like to share just 10 or 20 examples. I'm very excited to hear of your groundbreaking research! After all, if you could show this, you'd be a Galileo for our times.
Oh, I think it's clear what benefits gay folks get from being able to marry someone of the same gender: it's a two-fer: not only do they get to marry the person they love, just like their straight friends, family and neighbours, they also get to drive narrow minded bigots like your good self to apoplexy. Hopefully a few of you will get sufficiently outraged to keel over, which will be great for the gene pool as well!