Oh yes, I'm pretty sure. The man didn't know why natural selection was not the same as random chance. That's a fairly basic piece of knowledge for someone who wishes to discuss evolutionary mechanisms, I'd say.
Cambridge didn't cost a penny to go to for my parents. At the time, the UK still held to a notion of public funding for tertiary education. All that has gone now, sadly.
"Flunky" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.
I don't see how the fact that you know he knows something about archaeology or ancient religions is even vaguely relevant to whether he knows jack shit about maths, evolution, etc. Whoop-de-doo for the fact that he may be conversant with scholarly debates about whether Qumran was a military fort or not. We asked him questions about natural selection that he was unable to answer. We were hardly renowned scholars, but we were all quite bright and studying a range of relevant subjects (medicine, natural sciences, maths, etc), and we came away with a shared view that he knew jack shit. Most of us had the privilege of hearing Stephen Jay Gould a year or so later, when he gave a guest lecture, and the difference was profound.
It's not silly of me to suggest that a man of his status would insult the intelligence of Cambridge undergraduates, because that's exactly what he did. There were several dozen of us in the room, and our intelligence was insulted.
Ben is a boy's name, as is Colin and Paul. Are you really part of that weird misogynistic part of humanity that thinks they can insult people by referring to them as girls when they are male? If so, you might want to spend some more time reflecting on your ridiculous prejudices instead of bigging up Gerald sodding Schroeder.
He isn't Galileo fighting a lonely battle against the cruel ignorance of mother church. He's a man peddllng plausible-sounding nonsense to vulnerable young adults in the hope of getting them to become frum. There are better ways of doing kiruv work.
I've been a senior management consultant at a top three strategy house for the past decade. I'm perfectly at ease with accepting contrarian ideas where those ideas have intrinsic worth, and have done so plenty of times professionally. However, I'm also perfectly at ease rejecting such ideas when they're complete bunkum. Anyhoo, I'm guessing my career might possibly be outstripping yours. But, if it makes you feel better to launch ad hominem attacks because I challenged your praise of Gerald.... you go right ahead. I hope it makes you feel better.
Don't attack strawmen. Obviously you can't get kosher pork, but you can get kosher prepack sandwiches. You can't get non-GMO pre-pack sandwiches.
And you don't practice kashrut, and something that's kosher l'Pesach is not a "higher" standard of kashrut. Glatt kosher is a higher standard.
There are other reasons people may wish to avoid GMOs beyond the medical. Same way that people may wish to avoid palm oil but that is also pretty nigh impossible to do at present.
Don't tell me things that I have already said as though they are revelations. I'm perfectly well aware that corporations are claiming First Amendment rights to try to prevent GMOs being labelled on their products; I said the same thing in an earlier post. The difference between us, is that you think this is a good thing.
I had the "pleasure" of hearing direct from the horse's ass/mouth in 1991, when I attended a Discovery seminar in Jerusalem and in 1992, when he visited the University of Cambridge, where I was studying, to give a talk. He is full of it. Some is ignorance, some is active disinformation, but the common thread is that it's drivel.
He didn't understand natural selection and how it differed from random chance. He was a big fan of the bible codes bollocks, which had my various religious mathematician friends going apoplectic at the calumnies being inflicted on both their faith and their discipline. He took Rambam's explanation of the length of creation days as literal.
And he fed this stuff to hundreds of folks, some of whom believed it. Not in Cambridge, where he got a comprehensive and hugely enjoyable pasting in public from me and my mates (Jodi, Ben, Jonny, Colin and Paul...good memories)
You made an assertion that was not true. I pointed out it was not true. You reply with a non sequitur and just for fun, also demonstrate you don't understand how scale economies would work in this instance. Well done!
You are already forced to eat GMOs in the US, because labelling provisions are not strong enough to enable you as a consumer to avoid them. And that's because corps have argued that they are protected by First Amendment rights from having to label GMOs as such on their products. So you kinda picked the wrong example there....
Man, if you're going to make a word the centrepiece of your rhetoric, at least pick one that you know how to spell. It's "cue", dumbass. A queue is a line. A cue is a prompt.
Of course removing contraception from your coverage has an effect on other people's coverage -- it drives their costs up by reducing the pool. Economics 101: scale cuts costs.
Firstly, ObamaCare is explicitly aimed at reducing the costs of healthcare ("bending the trend"). Take a look at the State Innovation Models programme, for example. There are both provider- and payor-side reforms.
Secondly, are you going to take on *all* your neighbours? The ones who are already sick? The ones who have significant precursors, like weighing 300lb? The ones who have family histories of diabetes? etc. If so, you'd better form a pretty big pool, and while that will deal with stochastic risk once you get above say half a million lives, you'll still be exposed to the risks of widespread demographic change, eg people getting fatter and living longer over time, and so you could still go bust.
Most of your taxes go to fund stuff you either don't care about or that you would not want to pay for. Much of that money goes to private companies. You are deluding yourself about the way the world works.
I'm sorry to say that infertility is rarely covered by health systems around the world, and is never fully covered. For example, the NHS will (nominally) pay for three rounds of IVF for women aged 23 to 39, who have an identified fertility issue, and who have had difficulty conceiving for three years. In practice, local payors will often not pay for all of that.
And the bitter truth is, it's not in your health system's interest to help you have a baby. It doesn't cut their costs, it increases them. However, contraception does cut costs for a health system and is thus worth paying for.
You are right. But it's important to acknowledge that multipayer systems are very far from providing unrationed care. There is denial of coverage of people, of conditions, both before and after the fact, there are unaffordable premiums, etc etc.
The truth is that *any* health system, no matter how generous, will have funding limits.
"I should pay my own way and no more, and never expect others to carry me"
You do realise that this is the *exact opposite* of how insurance works, right? The *whole* point of insurance is to pool risk, over people and over time.
The organisation I work for supports several thousand users who have configurations much as you describe. Agents cause issues. Hardware causes issues. Windows causes issues. Interactions cause issues. Lotus sodding Notes causes issues. It's awful. Truly a dog's dinner. BSODs are the worst of the problem, but they're merely the tip of an iceberg comprised of unresponsiveness, crashes and user misery.
How did this get marked insightful? How? Since when is a PowerEdge server a sensible comparison to a graphics / scientific-computing workstation? They are not remotely the same thing.
You seem not to understand that mature markets are capable of sustaining relatively high-value premium products. Not Rolls-Royce or Ferrari or Zondas: BMW, Mercedes. There are plenty of those sold. Lots of car aficionados will tell you that most Beemers and Mercs are poor value and only idiots buy them. Well, there's enough idiots to sustain plenty of profits (and most of those idiots would snort with derision at people who tell them they've bought "the wrong car", just as iPhone users will do to AndroidBores who tell them they've bought the wrong phone).
Another advantage: The gates for Oyster cards work faster than the gates for mechanical cards, because the ticket doesn't need to be fed through a small hole and picked up after it's been read. A gain of 2 or 3 seconds per commuter is a big deal in a crowded city.
Except that Scott Adams has no power to make these people suffer the fate his father suffered. But these people, by their advocacy, do have the ability to ensure that others will suffer the way his father did.
How about some other perspective: in 1941, the US entered into a total war, the last such war we have seen. Essentially the entire output and focus of the country was directed towards the task of winning the war. I'm not sure getting healthcare.gov up and running was really quite the same priority.
It is ridiculous self-serving nonsense to imagine that there are two neat categories of mind, "healthy" and "unhealthy", and that a mind in one category is always in that category.
This is not about poor people voting to sponge off rich people. Quite the opposite, it's about rich people duping poor people into voting for laws that make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. That's not being selfless, that's being duped. It also - duh, obviously - *creates* dependency, because it reduces people's incomes and assets, making them more likely to need handouts.
But you keep on living the counterfactual, in between sucking Rove's nuts. It seems to make ya happy.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, I'm pretty sure. The man didn't know why natural selection was not the same as random chance. That's a fairly basic piece of knowledge for someone who wishes to discuss evolutionary mechanisms, I'd say.
Cambridge didn't cost a penny to go to for my parents. At the time, the UK still held to a notion of public funding for tertiary education. All that has gone now, sadly.
"Flunky" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.
I don't see how the fact that you know he knows something about archaeology or ancient religions is even vaguely relevant to whether he knows jack shit about maths, evolution, etc. Whoop-de-doo for the fact that he may be conversant with scholarly debates about whether Qumran was a military fort or not. We asked him questions about natural selection that he was unable to answer. We were hardly renowned scholars, but we were all quite bright and studying a range of relevant subjects (medicine, natural sciences, maths, etc), and we came away with a shared view that he knew jack shit. Most of us had the privilege of hearing Stephen Jay Gould a year or so later, when he gave a guest lecture, and the difference was profound.
It's not silly of me to suggest that a man of his status would insult the intelligence of Cambridge undergraduates, because that's exactly what he did. There were several dozen of us in the room, and our intelligence was insulted.
Ben is a boy's name, as is Colin and Paul. Are you really part of that weird misogynistic part of humanity that thinks they can insult people by referring to them as girls when they are male? If so, you might want to spend some more time reflecting on your ridiculous prejudices instead of bigging up Gerald sodding Schroeder.
He isn't Galileo fighting a lonely battle against the cruel ignorance of mother church. He's a man peddllng plausible-sounding nonsense to vulnerable young adults in the hope of getting them to become frum. There are better ways of doing kiruv work.
I've been a senior management consultant at a top three strategy house for the past decade. I'm perfectly at ease with accepting contrarian ideas where those ideas have intrinsic worth, and have done so plenty of times professionally. However, I'm also perfectly at ease rejecting such ideas when they're complete bunkum. Anyhoo, I'm guessing my career might possibly be outstripping yours. But, if it makes you feel better to launch ad hominem attacks because I challenged your praise of Gerald.... you go right ahead. I hope it makes you feel better.
Don't attack strawmen. Obviously you can't get kosher pork, but you can get kosher prepack sandwiches. You can't get non-GMO pre-pack sandwiches.
And you don't practice kashrut, and something that's kosher l'Pesach is not a "higher" standard of kashrut. Glatt kosher is a higher standard.
There are other reasons people may wish to avoid GMOs beyond the medical. Same way that people may wish to avoid palm oil but that is also pretty nigh impossible to do at present.
Don't tell me things that I have already said as though they are revelations. I'm perfectly well aware that corporations are claiming First Amendment rights to try to prevent GMOs being labelled on their products; I said the same thing in an earlier post. The difference between us, is that you think this is a good thing.
I had the "pleasure" of hearing direct from the horse's ass/mouth in 1991, when I attended a Discovery seminar in Jerusalem and in 1992, when he visited the University of Cambridge, where I was studying, to give a talk. He is full of it. Some is ignorance, some is active disinformation, but the common thread is that it's drivel.
He didn't understand natural selection and how it differed from random chance. He was a big fan of the bible codes bollocks, which had my various religious mathematician friends going apoplectic at the calumnies being inflicted on both their faith and their discipline. He took Rambam's explanation of the length of creation days as literal.
And he fed this stuff to hundreds of folks, some of whom believed it. Not in Cambridge, where he got a comprehensive and hugely enjoyable pasting in public from me and my mates (Jodi, Ben, Jonny, Colin and Paul...good memories)
You can get kosher everything, but you can't get non-GMO everything
You made an assertion that was not true. I pointed out it was not true. You reply with a non sequitur and just for fun, also demonstrate you don't understand how scale economies would work in this instance. Well done!
You are already forced to eat GMOs in the US, because labelling provisions are not strong enough to enable you as a consumer to avoid them. And that's because corps have argued that they are protected by First Amendment rights from having to label GMOs as such on their products. So you kinda picked the wrong example there....
Man, if you're going to make a word the centrepiece of your rhetoric, at least pick one that you know how to spell. It's "cue", dumbass. A queue is a line. A cue is a prompt.
Of course removing contraception from your coverage has an effect on other people's coverage -- it drives their costs up by reducing the pool. Economics 101: scale cuts costs.
Firstly, ObamaCare is explicitly aimed at reducing the costs of healthcare ("bending the trend"). Take a look at the State Innovation Models programme, for example. There are both provider- and payor-side reforms.
Secondly, are you going to take on *all* your neighbours? The ones who are already sick? The ones who have significant precursors, like weighing 300lb? The ones who have family histories of diabetes? etc. If so, you'd better form a pretty big pool, and while that will deal with stochastic risk once you get above say half a million lives, you'll still be exposed to the risks of widespread demographic change, eg people getting fatter and living longer over time, and so you could still go bust.
Most of your taxes go to fund stuff you either don't care about or that you would not want to pay for. Much of that money goes to private companies. You are deluding yourself about the way the world works.
I'm sorry to say that infertility is rarely covered by health systems around the world, and is never fully covered. For example, the NHS will (nominally) pay for three rounds of IVF for women aged 23 to 39, who have an identified fertility issue, and who have had difficulty conceiving for three years. In practice, local payors will often not pay for all of that.
And the bitter truth is, it's not in your health system's interest to help you have a baby. It doesn't cut their costs, it increases them. However, contraception does cut costs for a health system and is thus worth paying for.
You are right. But it's important to acknowledge that multipayer systems are very far from providing unrationed care. There is denial of coverage of people, of conditions, both before and after the fact, there are unaffordable premiums, etc etc.
The truth is that *any* health system, no matter how generous, will have funding limits.
"I should pay my own way and no more, and never expect others to carry me"
You do realise that this is the *exact opposite* of how insurance works, right? The *whole* point of insurance is to pool risk, over people and over time.
Well, post a link if it was so damn good!
I don't see, btw, that there is a natural link between covering a topic in detail and covering it well.
The organisation I work for supports several thousand users who have configurations much as you describe. Agents cause issues. Hardware causes issues. Windows causes issues. Interactions cause issues. Lotus sodding Notes causes issues. It's awful. Truly a dog's dinner. BSODs are the worst of the problem, but they're merely the tip of an iceberg comprised of unresponsiveness, crashes and user misery.
How did this get marked insightful? How? Since when is a PowerEdge server a sensible comparison to a graphics / scientific-computing workstation? They are not remotely the same thing.
The combination of Windows + hardware is decidedly *not* problem free these days. My company's helpdesk is pretty busy dealing with BSODs etc etc.
You seem not to understand that mature markets are capable of sustaining relatively high-value premium products. Not Rolls-Royce or Ferrari or Zondas: BMW, Mercedes. There are plenty of those sold. Lots of car aficionados will tell you that most Beemers and Mercs are poor value and only idiots buy them. Well, there's enough idiots to sustain plenty of profits (and most of those idiots would snort with derision at people who tell them they've bought "the wrong car", just as iPhone users will do to AndroidBores who tell them they've bought the wrong phone).
Another advantage:
The gates for Oyster cards work faster than the gates for mechanical cards, because the ticket doesn't need to be fed through a small hole and picked up after it's been read. A gain of 2 or 3 seconds per commuter is a big deal in a crowded city.
Except that Scott Adams has no power to make these people suffer the fate his father suffered. But these people, by their advocacy, do have the ability to ensure that others will suffer the way his father did.
The wish and the deed are quite different.
How about some other perspective: in 1941, the US entered into a total war, the last such war we have seen. Essentially the entire output and focus of the country was directed towards the task of winning the war. I'm not sure getting healthcare.gov up and running was really quite the same priority.
It is ridiculous self-serving nonsense to imagine that there are two neat categories of mind, "healthy" and "unhealthy", and that a mind in one category is always in that category.
Your analysis may be disputable but props for the writing flair and wit.
And repeats a line about MBAs that's only been said about .... a million times already.
Erm, you're kind of missing the point.
This is not about poor people voting to sponge off rich people. Quite the opposite, it's about rich people duping poor people into voting for laws that make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. That's not being selfless, that's being duped. It also - duh, obviously - *creates* dependency, because it reduces people's incomes and assets, making them more likely to need handouts.
But you keep on living the counterfactual, in between sucking Rove's nuts. It seems to make ya happy.