It is useful to have some understanding of what co-workings that you interact with do. This helps create some common ground and some understanding of reasonable expectations.
However, having everyone understand what everyone else does at your organization is just a waste of time. Very small organizations are a possible exception.
There is also a difference between appreciating/understanding what someone else does and actually doing part of their job (aka code going into production).
Or how about not have government enforced and propped up monopolies that prevent any substantive competition that would force carriers to offer these types of benefits to get an edge over their competitors? Yes, if we want to keep the monopolies/oligopolies we need more regulation but that isn't the only, or best, option.
And of course, Paul voted against it. One of only seven Republicans to vote against it. Shame he'll be gone soon, not that the vote made any difference.
That website looks to basically be an atheist flame bait and venting forum. One of the poll headlines says "even religious voters overwhelmingly want the candidates to debate science." Even? Seriously? If 80% of the population of the world (the religious population) was anti-science then there would be little to no scientific progress.
Will atheists please stop confusing real/perceived ignorance of an area(s) of science or rejection of some specific subsection of science with being anti-science in general? It is complete and utter nonsense that does absolutely no one any form of good. All it does is piss people off and create larger divides. If someone is wrong, tell them why they are wrong and rise above the childish name calling.
To try and prove yourselves correct about all the "anti-science" religious people, find actual religious people (it won't be hard, you are surrounded by them) and ask them if they think science is important and if they think science is a bad thing. I have never met someone who is "anti-science" in my entire life and most people would be hard pressed to find even a single person like that yet alone a large segment of the religious population. Sure, there are Amish people, and others, that may fit the bill but that is not representative of the majority of religious populations. Stop fantasizing about yourselves standing on a pillar of science looking down on the religious dolts and actually ground yourselves in at least a small dose of reality that you claim to have such an amazing grasp on.
Yeah, this is a bit trolly and flamebaitish but most of that website, the basis of this thread, is even more so. The basic idea that website is founded on is a very good thing, we need more public discussion about these issues. The presentation, insinuations, and tone are downright shameful.
The "downside" is that it doesn't end up reducing environmental impact, gasoline consumption, or the net cost of owning the vehicle by as much as it otherwise would. It is still a good thing but it doesn't do as much towards reaching the intended goals of setting MPG requirements in the first place.
Unfortunately, you will also end up driving more if you have a more fuel efficient car. It won't be a 1 to 1 increase but generally when things get cheaper people don't pocket the savings and live with what they had before, they use the savings to get more of the stuff. That doesn't invalidate your point, just another thing to add to the equation.
That's an example of natural selection (well...artificial selection really) which is a key piece to the theory of evolution but they are not one and the same. The theory of evolution also includes mutations, the actual path/course that evolution took (which is where the biggest divide with creationsists is), and so on.
as to why this is an important issue to the "abortion debate?"
I always understood this issue as trying to determine which of the following two alternatives is true:
1) A zygote/fetus/whatever is a hunk of flesh in a woman's body
2) A zygote/fetus/whatever is a living being/person that deserves rights and protections
If 1 is true then women should be able to get abortions anytime they want for any reason they want, after all it is just a hunk of flesh in their body.
If 2 is true then women should not be able to get abortions no matter the reason because killing is killing. Whether the fetus was a result of a loving relationship, a one night stand, rape, or incest does not change that it is/is not a valuable being deserving rights and protections. (one possible exception is if the mother's life is in danger...then it is valuable life vs. valuable life).
So, why are we discussing % of rape victims that get pregnant with regards to abortion? I'm not dismissing the general impact/importance of discussing rape and it's terrible effects, I just don't see why allowing or not allowing abortion should be part of the discussion.
He certainly is a statesmen and cordial as far as politicians go. My main beef with him is how he shifted from more moderate to more conservative when he ran for president. The direction and positions aren't as much of an issue as the fact that he shifted for the sake of the election.
Ron Paul fits your description although it is debatable as to whether he fits into the current notion of what a Republican is.
The problem is that Obama isn't much different, he sucks up to banks (and other industries) just as much. Voting for him wouldn't get you away from that anymore than voting for McCain would have or voting for Romney would.
I was referring to the "teabagger" comment and you implying they are "dangerous" and "violent." Surely, some of them are. Those are the ones that get on the news. Using terms like "teabagger" just makes you sound ignorant, spiteful, and childish. I know that's the cool thing to say in some liberal circles but that doesn't mean you have to follow along with the herd.
I was more referencing his smearing of the Tea Party. Characterizing the entire group based on the uninformed, screaming, loonies doesn't do anyone any favors. It just further divides and encourages partisan bickering. As everyone should be aware, the news only covers the loudest members of a group and that is not necessarily representative of the rest of the group.
There certainly are lunatics in the tea party and there are probably a larger proportion of lunatics in that group than most other political groups. However, smearing the entire Tea Party with that is part of what contributes to the current partisan environment. Being dismissive doesn't get anyone anywhere. The only thing it accomplishes is to piss people off. The problem is that lots of people do this on a regular basis, I'm sure I have at times, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tone it down and listen to each other. Listening != agreeing. Different opinion != lunatic, fanatic, etc.
I hate to defend McCain but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llef8ZRTWQo
He did actually speak up. Could he have said more and altered tone? Sure, but he wasn't silent about it.
As a side note, you should really stop trying to label entire groups of people based on douche bag members of that group. Every group has people that the group itself should be ashamed of but that hardly justifies tar and feathering the entire group. That's called applying stereotypes. Two examples of applying stereotypes that you may be familiar with are racism and sexism.
Hopefully they choose to redesign and switch to something else. Flash is nothing but bad news for anything other than playing video and stupid little (although often fun) flash games. It really has no place in a good website design. I can't stand most pages that use flash extensively (I usually hit back as soon as I see that loading bar).
Your overall point is good but just because something is "not necessarily true" does not make it false. If something is "not necessarily true" it could be true or it could be false, we just don't know which it is. It is a bit of a nit pick and you may have glossed over that for the sake of brevity.
with thunderous applause. Wait, did I just quote one of the three prequels? I am ashamed...but slightly less ashamed than the people who think the TSA is doing an excellent job should be.
That's not a third option, that's an additional point.
Good things the FDA does:
A. Disallow bad drugs.
Bad things the FDA does:
B. Disallow good drugs. (or discourage their development)
C. Delay the use of good drugs.
"A" is obviously a good thing. "B" is obviously a bad thing. "C" is a bad thing whether you could have "only" given someone 3 more months to live or you could have cured their disease and prevented their death from it. Yes, there are varying degrees of "C" but it is a negative effect (bad thing) no matter how you spin it.
The question is, do the positives ("A") outweigh the negatives ("B" and "C").
Citing specific examples of "A", "B", or "C" does not prove anything other than they happen. I can't see how there would be disagreement that they all happen/exist. The disagreement is about the frequency and impact of "A", "B", and "C". To prove anything about the net effect, you would need to look at every drug ever approved, disapproved, or not developed due to the FDA process and sum of their net effects.
As for Krugman, I can't help but think you are trolling by actually googling "the government is so wonderful." Read his articles regularly and you will understand that is the message he is sending, not the exact phrase he is uttering. Yes, it is an overstatement but so is "the market is so wonderful." As a side note, Friedman (and other libertarians), also think the government does (or should do) important things that the market can't do. An environmental example is at ~8:50 into this video: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936
You aren't too far off, Paul Krugman is another good example of what you are talking about. Although he usually replaces "the free market is so wonderful" with "the government is so wonderful." Part of the problem with economics is that it is in the same category as psychology and other "soft" sciences. It is impossible to change a variable and hold everything else constant within a group of people or an economy (really just a group of people and their interactions) so every experiment is different and they are rarely repeatable. It is also quite difficult to do things like create great depressions, let alone with similar causes and attributes, and try to fix them by different means to see which approach is most effective.
As for problems the FDA has caused, in 1998 the average approval time for a drug was 7.3 years. If it was a life saving drug, that would mean deaths during those 7.3 years even if the drug was eventually approved. If you sum up the deaths and suffering from delayed drugs (100% of drugs) then that is undeniable harm the FDA is causing. Either the drugs aren't effective or the FDA is causing harm by delaying them. One of those two things has to be true. You don't need specific examples for that to be undeniably true.
You know that economics as a science is fundamentally flawed when it expects that people are out to serve their best interests.
and realized you were disagreeing with the notion that people try to act in their own best interests. That makes my paragraph (in the post below) about drug companies acting in their own best interests pointless in this context. My bad.
I do actually think it is shocking that you don't think people are out to serve their own best interests (generally). They can certainly fail to actually determine what will serve their interests bests but I still think it is self evident that they are trying to do so.
I would suggest reading his arguments then responding. He clearly stated (even in this excerpt) that the FDA does do some good things and does protect us from bad food and drugs. His primary point is that the FDA also protects us from safe, effective drugs and safe food. His argument is that it does more damage than good, not that it doesn't do good or that there wasn't a legitimate reason for wanting something like the FDA.
The role the FDA is supposed to fill is a desirable one, the problem is that it doesn't do it well.
You are correct that people generally act in their own best interests. Drug companies are no different. If they poison and/or kill people they will lose vast amounts of money through lawsuits and lost of future customers due to destroyed trust. Drug companies like making money so it is in their interest to test their own drugs.
As for your arguments about people being idiots, who do you think runs the FDA? Robots? No, they are the very same people you don't trust to make decisions for themselves. If you don't trust people to make decisions for themselves, which they have a huge vested interest in, why do you trust people to make decisions for other people, of whom they have little vested interest?
Slashdot Mirror
It is useful to have some understanding of what co-workings that you interact with do. This helps create some common ground and some understanding of reasonable expectations.
However, having everyone understand what everyone else does at your organization is just a waste of time. Very small organizations are a possible exception.
There is also a difference between appreciating/understanding what someone else does and actually doing part of their job (aka code going into production).
Or how about not have government enforced and propped up monopolies that prevent any substantive competition that would force carriers to offer these types of benefits to get an edge over their competitors? Yes, if we want to keep the monopolies/oligopolies we need more regulation but that isn't the only, or best, option.
Over generalize much?
And of course, Paul voted against it. One of only seven Republicans to vote against it. Shame he'll be gone soon, not that the vote made any difference.
A schooner IS a sail boat stupid head!
2:30 is when I go to the dentist.
That website looks to basically be an atheist flame bait and venting forum. One of the poll headlines says "even religious voters overwhelmingly want the candidates to debate science." Even? Seriously? If 80% of the population of the world (the religious population) was anti-science then there would be little to no scientific progress.
Will atheists please stop confusing real/perceived ignorance of an area(s) of science or rejection of some specific subsection of science with being anti-science in general? It is complete and utter nonsense that does absolutely no one any form of good. All it does is piss people off and create larger divides. If someone is wrong, tell them why they are wrong and rise above the childish name calling.
To try and prove yourselves correct about all the "anti-science" religious people, find actual religious people (it won't be hard, you are surrounded by them) and ask them if they think science is important and if they think science is a bad thing. I have never met someone who is "anti-science" in my entire life and most people would be hard pressed to find even a single person like that yet alone a large segment of the religious population. Sure, there are Amish people, and others, that may fit the bill but that is not representative of the majority of religious populations. Stop fantasizing about yourselves standing on a pillar of science looking down on the religious dolts and actually ground yourselves in at least a small dose of reality that you claim to have such an amazing grasp on.
Yeah, this is a bit trolly and flamebaitish but most of that website, the basis of this thread, is even more so. The basic idea that website is founded on is a very good thing, we need more public discussion about these issues. The presentation, insinuations, and tone are downright shameful.
The "downside" is that it doesn't end up reducing environmental impact, gasoline consumption, or the net cost of owning the vehicle by as much as it otherwise would. It is still a good thing but it doesn't do as much towards reaching the intended goals of setting MPG requirements in the first place.
Unfortunately, you will also end up driving more if you have a more fuel efficient car. It won't be a 1 to 1 increase but generally when things get cheaper people don't pocket the savings and live with what they had before, they use the savings to get more of the stuff. That doesn't invalidate your point, just another thing to add to the equation.
That's an example of natural selection (well...artificial selection really) which is a key piece to the theory of evolution but they are not one and the same. The theory of evolution also includes mutations, the actual path/course that evolution took (which is where the biggest divide with creationsists is), and so on.
I always understood this issue as trying to determine which of the following two alternatives is true:
1) A zygote/fetus/whatever is a hunk of flesh in a woman's body
2) A zygote/fetus/whatever is a living being/person that deserves rights and protections
If 1 is true then women should be able to get abortions anytime they want for any reason they want, after all it is just a hunk of flesh in their body.
If 2 is true then women should not be able to get abortions no matter the reason because killing is killing. Whether the fetus was a result of a loving relationship, a one night stand, rape, or incest does not change that it is/is not a valuable being deserving rights and protections. (one possible exception is if the mother's life is in danger...then it is valuable life vs. valuable life).
So, why are we discussing % of rape victims that get pregnant with regards to abortion? I'm not dismissing the general impact/importance of discussing rape and it's terrible effects, I just don't see why allowing or not allowing abortion should be part of the discussion.
He certainly is a statesmen and cordial as far as politicians go. My main beef with him is how he shifted from more moderate to more conservative when he ran for president. The direction and positions aren't as much of an issue as the fact that he shifted for the sake of the election.
Ron Paul fits your description although it is debatable as to whether he fits into the current notion of what a Republican is.
The problem is that Obama isn't much different, he sucks up to banks (and other industries) just as much. Voting for him wouldn't get you away from that anymore than voting for McCain would have or voting for Romney would.
I was referring to the "teabagger" comment and you implying they are "dangerous" and "violent." Surely, some of them are. Those are the ones that get on the news. Using terms like "teabagger" just makes you sound ignorant, spiteful, and childish. I know that's the cool thing to say in some liberal circles but that doesn't mean you have to follow along with the herd.
I was more referencing his smearing of the Tea Party. Characterizing the entire group based on the uninformed, screaming, loonies doesn't do anyone any favors. It just further divides and encourages partisan bickering. As everyone should be aware, the news only covers the loudest members of a group and that is not necessarily representative of the rest of the group.
There certainly are lunatics in the tea party and there are probably a larger proportion of lunatics in that group than most other political groups. However, smearing the entire Tea Party with that is part of what contributes to the current partisan environment. Being dismissive doesn't get anyone anywhere. The only thing it accomplishes is to piss people off. The problem is that lots of people do this on a regular basis, I'm sure I have at times, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tone it down and listen to each other. Listening != agreeing. Different opinion != lunatic, fanatic, etc.
I hate to defend McCain but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llef8ZRTWQo
He did actually speak up. Could he have said more and altered tone? Sure, but he wasn't silent about it.
As a side note, you should really stop trying to label entire groups of people based on douche bag members of that group. Every group has people that the group itself should be ashamed of but that hardly justifies tar and feathering the entire group. That's called applying stereotypes. Two examples of applying stereotypes that you may be familiar with are racism and sexism.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/business/la-fi-tn-apple-motorola-lawsuit-dismissed-20120608
Yes, you said Google but it is still relevant that Apple sued Motorola since it is the Motorola unit of Google that is suing Apple.
Hopefully they choose to redesign and switch to something else. Flash is nothing but bad news for anything other than playing video and stupid little (although often fun) flash games. It really has no place in a good website design. I can't stand most pages that use flash extensively (I usually hit back as soon as I see that loading bar).
Your overall point is good but just because something is "not necessarily true" does not make it false. If something is "not necessarily true" it could be true or it could be false, we just don't know which it is. It is a bit of a nit pick and you may have glossed over that for the sake of brevity.
with thunderous applause. Wait, did I just quote one of the three prequels? I am ashamed...but slightly less ashamed than the people who think the TSA is doing an excellent job should be.
who checked the headline for accuracy? If you didn't, then the headline is wrong.
Good things the FDA does:
A. Disallow bad drugs.
Bad things the FDA does:
B. Disallow good drugs. (or discourage their development)
C. Delay the use of good drugs.
"A" is obviously a good thing. "B" is obviously a bad thing. "C" is a bad thing whether you could have "only" given someone 3 more months to live or you could have cured their disease and prevented their death from it. Yes, there are varying degrees of "C" but it is a negative effect (bad thing) no matter how you spin it.
The question is, do the positives ("A") outweigh the negatives ("B" and "C").
Citing specific examples of "A", "B", or "C" does not prove anything other than they happen. I can't see how there would be disagreement that they all happen/exist. The disagreement is about the frequency and impact of "A", "B", and "C". To prove anything about the net effect, you would need to look at every drug ever approved, disapproved, or not developed due to the FDA process and sum of their net effects.
As for Krugman, I can't help but think you are trolling by actually googling "the government is so wonderful." Read his articles regularly and you will understand that is the message he is sending, not the exact phrase he is uttering. Yes, it is an overstatement but so is "the market is so wonderful." As a side note, Friedman (and other libertarians), also think the government does (or should do) important things that the market can't do. An environmental example is at ~8:50 into this video: http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936
You aren't too far off, Paul Krugman is another good example of what you are talking about. Although he usually replaces "the free market is so wonderful" with "the government is so wonderful." Part of the problem with economics is that it is in the same category as psychology and other "soft" sciences. It is impossible to change a variable and hold everything else constant within a group of people or an economy (really just a group of people and their interactions) so every experiment is different and they are rarely repeatable. It is also quite difficult to do things like create great depressions, let alone with similar causes and attributes, and try to fix them by different means to see which approach is most effective.
As for problems the FDA has caused, in 1998 the average approval time for a drug was 7.3 years. If it was a life saving drug, that would mean deaths during those 7.3 years even if the drug was eventually approved. If you sum up the deaths and suffering from delayed drugs (100% of drugs) then that is undeniable harm the FDA is causing. Either the drugs aren't effective or the FDA is causing harm by delaying them. One of those two things has to be true. You don't need specific examples for that to be undeniably true.
You know that economics as a science is fundamentally flawed when it expects that people are out to serve their best interests.
and realized you were disagreeing with the notion that people try to act in their own best interests. That makes my paragraph (in the post below) about drug companies acting in their own best interests pointless in this context. My bad.
I do actually think it is shocking that you don't think people are out to serve their own best interests (generally). They can certainly fail to actually determine what will serve their interests bests but I still think it is self evident that they are trying to do so.
The role the FDA is supposed to fill is a desirable one, the problem is that it doesn't do it well.
You are correct that people generally act in their own best interests. Drug companies are no different. If they poison and/or kill people they will lose vast amounts of money through lawsuits and lost of future customers due to destroyed trust. Drug companies like making money so it is in their interest to test their own drugs.
As for your arguments about people being idiots, who do you think runs the FDA? Robots? No, they are the very same people you don't trust to make decisions for themselves. If you don't trust people to make decisions for themselves, which they have a huge vested interest in, why do you trust people to make decisions for other people, of whom they have little vested interest?