Not true. Every law that has increased your safety came on the cries of "It'll ruin us!" by the businesses who were tasked with improving safety. Air bags, antilock brakes, refridgeration of food, OSHA... every last one of them had a business using that argument. I have yet to see a case of an industry winking out of existance because the government demanded a more stringent safety standard.
That has nothing to do with any of my posts. That is why I went off about the straw man fallacy and outlined my points. You were not addressing anything I said. I never stated anything about how making this change would "ruin us" or cause the industry to "wink" out of existence. I never even said we shouldn't make the change.
You are correct that I didn't include one of my original points, so here it is:
#2.5 Producers pass their costs on to their consumers
You "rebutted" this axiom when you stated "They'd go up anyway". I countered by agreeing they would go up anyway but increasing medical costs more "would make it go up even more." You did not address this rebuttal at all. You just jumped into a straw man fallacy by insinuating I was arguing that the increased cost would ruin the medical industry.
Yes...and...your point? That's why I said "states like California", the added s makes it plural meaning there are more than one so I'm not sure what additional points you are trying to make or information you are trying to present. California's performance still sucks either way, was just pointing out it isn't just a matter of our science education sucking, there are also other non-trivial factors bringing down California's (and, yes, some other states) scores.
with tests in states like California you have to look at how many students read and speak English well. If you can barely understand the language you are going to do terrible on pretty much any test. In 2000, 40% of people in California spoke another language at home. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/csre/reports/execsum_14.pdf
That 40% contains varying degrees of ability to speak, read, and write English but it is safe to say most of them will be at a disadvantage when taking a test in a language they are not fluent in.
That being said, we (California) still have crappy public schools and this is still a huge problem. However, it isn't just a problem of bad science education, it is also a language barrier problem.
I'm 100% with you as far as the TSA is concerned. I don't have an opinion on medical uses since I haven't seen those numbers/analysis. They may be out there (and probably are) but I am too lazy to look for them considering I won't change the outcome by looking at them.
Step 1, read this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Step 2, re-read my posts.
Step 3, read this post.
I never said more stringent safety standards has, or would, destroy any industry (this is where that wikipedia page I linked comes in).
My argument really boils down to these 4 points:
#1 Getting x-rays can be dangerous
#2 There are safer but more expensive alternatives
#3 Not all increased safety is worth the cost
#4 We should evaluate if this is a case where the increased safety is worth the cost
An illustration of #3: we could limit cars to 5mph and make them out of air bags to reduce deaths in the US alone by 35,000 per year but we are unwilling to take on that cost to our prosperity and way of life. This is an enormous increase of safety that we are unwilling to go with because of the cost.
That is all, I am not making any other points. Feel free to disagree with any of those 4 points, don't disagree with other points because I am not making any other points.
I'm not trying to belittle the effects of x-rays on cancer rates or how horrible it is for people who get cancer. I'm just saying it needs to be looked at from a cost/benefit angle just like everything else. It certainly does sound morbid and callous to put it that way but that is just a fact of life. If we really wan't to be as safe as possible, the speed limit would be 5 mph and we would all drive cars made of air bags. Is that the case? Not even close. We always choose to weigh costs with benefits, even when lives are concerned and that isn't the way it should be, that is the way it has to be.
Again, maybe they should switch to the safer methods. However, they should not switch automatically just because it is safer. They need to look at how much safer it is and how much more expensive it is.
Well...that is true...but forcing them to use more expensive treatments would make it go up even more. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it but we do actually have to ask the question of whether or not it is worth it and not automatically switch to it just because it is safer.
see your monthly premiums go up in response. There are always trade offs and safety is a frequent one in pretty much every aspect of people's lives. If this is the type of thing where 1 in a million kids might get cancer because of x-rays over more expensive alternatives then it may not be worth switching. Money spent treating the 999,999 kids that are unaffected with the more expensive option could possibly be put to better uses. I am not saying whether or not it is worth it in this case because I have absolutely no idea. I don't know what the chances of problems arising are or the comparative costs of the safer alternatives. What I am saying is that it isn't just a matter of "always use the safer method."
Sounds like you are doing a lot endurance activities (aka cycling) which means you are probably putting those carbs to good use. Glad to see you got results and if it is working for you (seems to be) then definitely keep with it. Most Americans are much more sedentary and wouldn't even dream of a 2 hour uphill bike ride so I doubt most of them would get the same results. Definitely worth experimenting on an individual basis.
You are spot on about eating as much non-starchy vegetables as you can. Not so right about the other stuff.
One of the key arguments against a high carb diet is that carbs make you hungry, especially high glycemic index carbs. It is difficult for most people to replace, gram for gram, carbs for fat because fat makes you full and is more satiating than carbs. This is especially true a few hours after a meal when a high carb diet will result in a blood sugar crash which makes you hungry again.
Endurance athletes and high performing athletes are a different story, they generally benefit from lots of fat and even more carbs. Most people don't fall into that category though.
Everyone's body and genetics are different and they react to food in different ways. That being said, I have almost never seen success from other people who go the high carb and low fat route. If they do lose weight, they end up putting it right back on. I have seen tons of people, including myself, see huge benefits from going with a higher fat, lower carb approach. I'm typically in the 20-40% carbs range which is low compared to the SAD but I would hesitate to even call that a lower carb diet. If I wanted to lose more weight I would cut down on the carbs even more but I'm fine where I'm at.
anyone investing in anything should know there are risks involved. Anyone who knows anything about video game development knows that the completion, let alone success, of a video game is highly unpredictable. Knowing this, most people won't get that angry or upset at a project failing although there will certainly be lots of disappointment. We also aren't talking about the kind of investment where people are dumping their life savings into it or banking their retirement on a financial return on their investment. Sure, some idiots who didn't understand what they were investing in will get pissed off and never invest again but I think that will be the exception rather than the rule. Maybe I'm too optimistic (wow, don't get to say that often) but I doubt it.
How about you just buy Windows 8 Pro and you don't have to worry about it? I totally agree with hating nickle and dime services but they give you an option to avoid it so I don't really see the problem. If they go the route of offering Windows 8 without DVD playback at a cheaper price then I am all for this move because it is a feature I don't need and I prefer not to pay for things I don't need. If they are keeping the regular pricing and tacking this on (aka I'm paying the same price and getting less), then I have a problem with it.
One of the main benefits of a free market is that it provides an emergent system where solutions arise that one central planner sitting in Washington probably couldn't have thought of. Those solutions are then tested in the fires of the market. If it provides something consumers like or need at a price they are willing to pay, it will succeed. If it is a bad idea, it will fail and be removed from the system. When a person in a regulatory committee sits down and says that all blue ducks must be sold in no less than six packs: http://www.idiotlaws.com/blue-ducks-only-legal-as-six-packs/
that becomes law and it is unlikely to ever change. It is unlikely to change no matter how bad or good an idea it is. No matter how bad or good of an idea it is, every single company in the entire nation that falls under that regulation has to implement and follow that idea.
Free markets home in on efficient solutions. Regulations are a crap shoot based on how competent and honest the regulator is and how well understood the industry is.
All that being said, you are absolutely right that monopolies are to be feared and it is one of the governments responsibilities to help prevent them from forming and to bust them up if they do. The government should prosecute fraud, enforce contracts, and bust monopolies. In a free market, monopolies aren't as much of a problem because they are typically formed when the government isn't enforcing basic criminal laws or the government is protecting monopolies via regulations that increase the barriers to entry into a market, subsidizing the monopolies, etc.
...That's because each provider has to run their own wires, and a hundred years ago, city leaders didn't want to have all the separate wires running everywhere if each electric company...
I am actually fairly sympathetic to the argument that the government must be involved someway due to the physical layer. Either directly by owning the physical layer or less directly by regulating a monopoly that controls the physical layer. We currently have slightly regulated monopolies, which is the worst possible case.
Although I find that a reasonable argument and would prefer it over our current system, I don't think we can discount a free, unregulated market being better. For example, it is not in an energy companies best interest to lay down wires just because they want their own. It is expensive. What they will do instead is try to lease/rent existing infrastructure. If that is too costly because the physical layers owner is unreasonable or their system is overtaxed, it will at some point be worth it for competitors to put down their own infrastructure (physical layer). No one would want to see "wires running everywhere", including the electric companies. Having the physical layer/network be controlled by private companies has worked decently well for cellphones. The coverage and quality of those networks has been growing dramatically and that is in a market that itself is fairly heavily regulated and not far off from an oligopoly.
...less government control = more corporate control...
That can certainly be true if the government does not enforce laws about bullying, fraud, etc. With the government enforcing basic contract law and basic "don't break my knee caps because I'm competing with you" law it is impossible for monopolies to last and nearly impossible for them to form in the first place. If a monopoly is abusing or gauging their customers, customers will be willing to give their money to someone else who will treat them better, as always. People like money. People will try to fill those customers needs so they can get those customers' money.
No, we have corporatism, not unregulated free market capitalism.
The government allowed, and encouraged, monopolies to form: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514236a.html
Systems from best to worst:
Unregulated market
Regulated market with some competition
Regulated monopolies
Unregulated monopolies propped up by the government
What the US has now is somewhere between the bottom two (worst) options. You are correct in that we could improve our system by further regulating the monopolies. We could fix, and dramatically improve, our system by breaking up the monopolies and deregulating further.
The real problem is that consumers have little to no choice of internet providers due to government regulations. In my area, I basically have the choice between Comcast and no internet. That isn't really a choice so they have a monopoly. The government is supposed to break up and prevent monopolies, not enforce and encourage them. If there were more providers they would be heavily incentivized to have no cap so that they could snatch up mine, and countless others, business from Comcast. I would gladly switch to such a provider and be willing to pay more for the service. We have no such alternative, that is the problem.
Their first suggestion is idiotic and completely contradictory to their goal of reducing costs. Their ideal change is to go from one scripted event to numerous scripted events that must take into account multiple different factors and outcomes. Yes...generating more complexity and more scripted events will definitely take less time and money than making one scripted event...
To be clear, it is not idiotic in general, just within the context of the article where they are trying to lower game costs.
I stand corrected. I misinterpreted all of the "I am adamantly against it" statements to mean he was voting, and did vote, against it. I am interested to find out if he abstained because he couldn't make the vote due to them having it a day early or if he changed his mind somewhat on it. I am guessing the former...but we see where my first assumption got me:P I wish Slashdot had an append feature where you could make a one time comment within your own comment for corrections.
Not to mention you have to have a crime to charge him with, then impeach him, then convict him (which actually gets him out of office). And then we would have Biden...
That experiment is way overrated and actually demonstrated very little. The instructor stated he was a doctor and insured the person administering the shock that it would not harm the person receiving the shock. What the shocker would be weighing is the likelihood that the doctor would throw away his career and risk spending the rest of his life in jail just to have you shock someone vs the experiment being legitimate and acceptable. If the instructor had said he was some guy off the street who "just wanted to try something" I doubt many, if any, individuals would have participated. That would have been a much more useful, albeit predictable, experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it is excess carbs instead of fat that actually causes CHD, we should send them wonder bread and corn flakes! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090625133215.htm
Not true. Every law that has increased your safety came on the cries of "It'll ruin us!" by the businesses who were tasked with improving safety. Air bags, antilock brakes, refridgeration of food, OSHA... every last one of them had a business using that argument. I have yet to see a case of an industry winking out of existance because the government demanded a more stringent safety standard.
That has nothing to do with any of my posts. That is why I went off about the straw man fallacy and outlined my points. You were not addressing anything I said. I never stated anything about how making this change would "ruin us" or cause the industry to "wink" out of existence. I never even said we shouldn't make the change.
You are correct that I didn't include one of my original points, so here it is:
#2.5 Producers pass their costs on to their consumers
You "rebutted" this axiom when you stated "They'd go up anyway". I countered by agreeing they would go up anyway but increasing medical costs more "would make it go up even more." You did not address this rebuttal at all. You just jumped into a straw man fallacy by insinuating I was arguing that the increased cost would ruin the medical industry.
Yes...and...your point? That's why I said "states like California", the added s makes it plural meaning there are more than one so I'm not sure what additional points you are trying to make or information you are trying to present. California's performance still sucks either way, was just pointing out it isn't just a matter of our science education sucking, there are also other non-trivial factors bringing down California's (and, yes, some other states) scores.
That 40% contains varying degrees of ability to speak, read, and write English but it is safe to say most of them will be at a disadvantage when taking a test in a language they are not fluent in.
That being said, we (California) still have crappy public schools and this is still a huge problem. However, it isn't just a problem of bad science education, it is also a language barrier problem.
I'm 100% with you as far as the TSA is concerned. I don't have an opinion on medical uses since I haven't seen those numbers/analysis. They may be out there (and probably are) but I am too lazy to look for them considering I won't change the outcome by looking at them.
Step 2, re-read my posts.
Step 3, read this post.
I never said more stringent safety standards has, or would, destroy any industry (this is where that wikipedia page I linked comes in).
My argument really boils down to these 4 points:
#1 Getting x-rays can be dangerous
#2 There are safer but more expensive alternatives
#3 Not all increased safety is worth the cost
#4 We should evaluate if this is a case where the increased safety is worth the cost
An illustration of #3: we could limit cars to 5mph and make them out of air bags to reduce deaths in the US alone by 35,000 per year but we are unwilling to take on that cost to our prosperity and way of life. This is an enormous increase of safety that we are unwilling to go with because of the cost.
That is all, I am not making any other points. Feel free to disagree with any of those 4 points, don't disagree with other points because I am not making any other points.
Again, maybe they should switch to the safer methods. However, they should not switch automatically just because it is safer. They need to look at how much safer it is and how much more expensive it is.
Well...that is true...but forcing them to use more expensive treatments would make it go up even more. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it but we do actually have to ask the question of whether or not it is worth it and not automatically switch to it just because it is safer.
see your monthly premiums go up in response. There are always trade offs and safety is a frequent one in pretty much every aspect of people's lives. If this is the type of thing where 1 in a million kids might get cancer because of x-rays over more expensive alternatives then it may not be worth switching. Money spent treating the 999,999 kids that are unaffected with the more expensive option could possibly be put to better uses. I am not saying whether or not it is worth it in this case because I have absolutely no idea. I don't know what the chances of problems arising are or the comparative costs of the safer alternatives. What I am saying is that it isn't just a matter of "always use the safer method."
Sounds like you are doing a lot endurance activities (aka cycling) which means you are probably putting those carbs to good use. Glad to see you got results and if it is working for you (seems to be) then definitely keep with it. Most Americans are much more sedentary and wouldn't even dream of a 2 hour uphill bike ride so I doubt most of them would get the same results. Definitely worth experimenting on an individual basis.
One of the key arguments against a high carb diet is that carbs make you hungry, especially high glycemic index carbs. It is difficult for most people to replace, gram for gram, carbs for fat because fat makes you full and is more satiating than carbs. This is especially true a few hours after a meal when a high carb diet will result in a blood sugar crash which makes you hungry again.
Endurance athletes and high performing athletes are a different story, they generally benefit from lots of fat and even more carbs. Most people don't fall into that category though.
Everyone's body and genetics are different and they react to food in different ways. That being said, I have almost never seen success from other people who go the high carb and low fat route. If they do lose weight, they end up putting it right back on. I have seen tons of people, including myself, see huge benefits from going with a higher fat, lower carb approach. I'm typically in the 20-40% carbs range which is low compared to the SAD but I would hesitate to even call that a lower carb diet. If I wanted to lose more weight I would cut down on the carbs even more but I'm fine where I'm at.
anyone investing in anything should know there are risks involved. Anyone who knows anything about video game development knows that the completion, let alone success, of a video game is highly unpredictable. Knowing this, most people won't get that angry or upset at a project failing although there will certainly be lots of disappointment. We also aren't talking about the kind of investment where people are dumping their life savings into it or banking their retirement on a financial return on their investment. Sure, some idiots who didn't understand what they were investing in will get pissed off and never invest again but I think that will be the exception rather than the rule. Maybe I'm too optimistic (wow, don't get to say that often) but I doubt it.
How about you just buy Windows 8 Pro and you don't have to worry about it? I totally agree with hating nickle and dime services but they give you an option to avoid it so I don't really see the problem. If they go the route of offering Windows 8 without DVD playback at a cheaper price then I am all for this move because it is a feature I don't need and I prefer not to pay for things I don't need. If they are keeping the regular pricing and tacking this on (aka I'm paying the same price and getting less), then I have a problem with it.
a good argument for kids to use on their parents as to why they should keep playing Starcraft 2 and not be playing sports :P
One of the main benefits of a free market is that it provides an emergent system where solutions arise that one central planner sitting in Washington probably couldn't have thought of. Those solutions are then tested in the fires of the market. If it provides something consumers like or need at a price they are willing to pay, it will succeed. If it is a bad idea, it will fail and be removed from the system. When a person in a regulatory committee sits down and says that all blue ducks must be sold in no less than six packs:
http://www.idiotlaws.com/blue-ducks-only-legal-as-six-packs/
that becomes law and it is unlikely to ever change. It is unlikely to change no matter how bad or good an idea it is. No matter how bad or good of an idea it is, every single company in the entire nation that falls under that regulation has to implement and follow that idea.
Free markets home in on efficient solutions. Regulations are a crap shoot based on how competent and honest the regulator is and how well understood the industry is.
All that being said, you are absolutely right that monopolies are to be feared and it is one of the governments responsibilities to help prevent them from forming and to bust them up if they do. The government should prosecute fraud, enforce contracts, and bust monopolies. In a free market, monopolies aren't as much of a problem because they are typically formed when the government isn't enforcing basic criminal laws or the government is protecting monopolies via regulations that increase the barriers to entry into a market, subsidizing the monopolies, etc.
...That's because each provider has to run their own wires, and a hundred years ago, city leaders didn't want to have all the separate wires running everywhere if each electric company...
I am actually fairly sympathetic to the argument that the government must be involved someway due to the physical layer. Either directly by owning the physical layer or less directly by regulating a monopoly that controls the physical layer. We currently have slightly regulated monopolies, which is the worst possible case.
Although I find that a reasonable argument and would prefer it over our current system, I don't think we can discount a free, unregulated market being better. For example, it is not in an energy companies best interest to lay down wires just because they want their own. It is expensive. What they will do instead is try to lease/rent existing infrastructure. If that is too costly because the physical layers owner is unreasonable or their system is overtaxed, it will at some point be worth it for competitors to put down their own infrastructure (physical layer). No one would want to see "wires running everywhere", including the electric companies. Having the physical layer/network be controlled by private companies has worked decently well for cellphones. The coverage and quality of those networks has been growing dramatically and that is in a market that itself is fairly heavily regulated and not far off from an oligopoly.
...less government control = more corporate control...
That can certainly be true if the government does not enforce laws about bullying, fraud, etc. With the government enforcing basic contract law and basic "don't break my knee caps because I'm competing with you" law it is impossible for monopolies to last and nearly impossible for them to form in the first place. If a monopoly is abusing or gauging their customers, customers will be willing to give their money to someone else who will treat them better, as always. People like money. People will try to fill those customers needs so they can get those customers' money.
No, we have corporatism, not unregulated free market capitalism.
The government allowed, and encouraged, monopolies to form: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514236a.html
Systems from best to worst:
Unregulated market
Regulated market with some competition
Regulated monopolies
Unregulated monopolies propped up by the government
What the US has now is somewhere between the bottom two (worst) options. You are correct in that we could improve our system by further regulating the monopolies. We could fix, and dramatically improve, our system by breaking up the monopolies and deregulating further.
The real problem is that consumers have little to no choice of internet providers due to government regulations. In my area, I basically have the choice between Comcast and no internet. That isn't really a choice so they have a monopoly. The government is supposed to break up and prevent monopolies, not enforce and encourage them. If there were more providers they would be heavily incentivized to have no cap so that they could snatch up mine, and countless others, business from Comcast. I would gladly switch to such a provider and be willing to pay more for the service. We have no such alternative, that is the problem.
To be clear, it is not idiotic in general, just within the context of the article where they are trying to lower game costs.
I stand corrected. I misinterpreted all of the "I am adamantly against it" statements to mean he was voting, and did vote, against it. I am interested to find out if he abstained because he couldn't make the vote due to them having it a day early or if he changed his mind somewhat on it. I am guessing the former...but we see where my first assumption got me :P I wish Slashdot had an append feature where you could make a one time comment within your own comment for corrections.
voted against it and spoke out against it.
Not to mention you have to have a crime to charge him with, then impeach him, then convict him (which actually gets him out of office). And then we would have Biden...
That experiment is way overrated and actually demonstrated very little. The instructor stated he was a doctor and insured the person administering the shock that it would not harm the person receiving the shock. What the shocker would be weighing is the likelihood that the doctor would throw away his career and risk spending the rest of his life in jail just to have you shock someone vs the experiment being legitimate and acceptable. If the instructor had said he was some guy off the street who "just wanted to try something" I doubt many, if any, individuals would have participated. That would have been a much more useful, albeit predictable, experiment.
Are you saying you would rather eat an animal that doesn't want you to eat it?