Very, very little in this world actually happens because the data suggests its a good idea. People make decisions based on their comfort level, tradition, who their friends are, etc. Suggesting that we should listen to the data disempowers the powerful. It's 2013, and the principles of evidence based medicine were only developed 20 years ago, and are still not widely used in practice. We're going to have to wait centuries before evidence based public policy becomes the norm.
When you see sweeping generalizations about intolerance, religious fundamentalism, and insane foreign policy, just remember that the Bush administration arrested and tortured people in secret prisons with no trials. Does that mean that all ~300,000,000 Americans supported that policy? Should the world now treat all Americans like paranoid war-mongers that embrace pre-emptive war and a police state? Was Bush v Gore definitive evidence that Americans can't hold fair elections?
Support is not writing a brief. Support is indicting the officers in question for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. These officers deserve the same treatment Obama's DOJ gave Aaron Swartz.
It's almost true for books. In 99% of the time, a book from a used book store or library functions identically to a brand new book. Maybe the spine has a crease, but that doesn't really affect your use of the book.
Authors have survived for centuries with people redistributing used books. They will survive for centuries more with people redistributing used ebooks.
You're not kidding. It's already been ruled by the SCOTUS that mere speech amounts to "material support for terrorism". I wouldn't be surprised if Holder argued that speech was combat as well.
When I write, "drug seeking behaviour" in the notes I don't want to show it to the patient, because I know all that is going to happen is I'm going to have to sit there whilst they scream at me until I finally give them the damn Diazepam just to get them out of my hair.
Legalize it so they don't have to lie to you. Problem solved.
drug dealers who wanted to intimidate the local population into silence
Drug dealers are on the side of freedom in the war on drugs. If it weren't for drug dealers putting their freedom and lives on the line, we wouldn't be seeing the tide turning away from prohibition.
If someone lives in a neighborhood terrorized by drug dealers, the right thing to do isn't snitch. It's to lobby to end the war on drugs. Change drug dealers from outlaws to businessmen. After all, when was the last time someone died in a turf war between Anheuser Busch and Coors? Philip Morris and PJ Reynolds? Doesn't happen. Make drugs legal and the only person hurt is the user.
Even though some drug dealers do terrible things, they are still better than the tyrants who demand prohibition. They hold the most responsibility for all the deaths in the war on drugs.
Everyone rational on both sides agrees that the child deserves a chance to live in all cases
No, everyone rational agrees that until birth, there is no child who deserves anything. The pile of tissues inside the womb has no interests until it becomes a child. The death of an unwanted fetus is no more significant than the removal of any other unwanted growth.
Doctors don't know everything. They're trained to spot the most common problems, but it's really, really easy to stump a doctor. My GF has been having dizzy spells. She went to her GP, who sent her to an ENT, who sent her to an audiologist. None had any ideas.
So she spends some time on Google, and finds out that dizziness can be a side effect of gall bladder attacks(through over stimulation of the vagus nerve which causes a sudden drop of blood pressure). And she had seen the same GP a year earlier about her gall bladder problems. Why didn't the GP pick this up?
No, patients should be encouraged to do as much research as they can. You as a patient care more about your issue than anyone else. You know more about your body than anyone else. You should be a partner with your doctor in your own health care.
If patients had free access to this, it would be very difficult for the physician to document their true findings and impressions for fear of "offending" their patient. This would also jeopardize the relationship between the doctor and patient, which is necessary in any setting.
But witholding this data offends me more than anything that could be inside it, and damages the relationship between me and my doctor. If my doctor cannot be completely honest with me, how can I be completely honest with her?
The solution to that problem is not to get a lighted keyboard, but to get a keyboard without labeled keycaps. They will learn to type by touch quickly.
The game is partly calculated server-side. This is why you need a constant internet connection
You have the causation reversed. The game is calculated server side in order to force you to need a constant internet connection. There is no reason to do this except to act as a form of DRM.
The problem is that irresponsible people have always existed and will always exist. How do we ensure their burden on society is minimal? Particularly relevant to this discussion is that irresponsible people come from irresponsible parents, so paying for abortion is likely to increase the responsibility of the average citizen.
If irresponsible people never hurt anyone but themselves, you'd have a good point. But they usually hurt other people as well. In this case, they are hurting an innocent child who deserves to be brought up in a loving family, or not at all.
I'm with you on most of those points. Except for this:
Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child.
You forget that a woman also has the ability to "walk away". If she chooses not to do so, why should that fall on the man?
Slashdot Mirror
Very, very little in this world actually happens because the data suggests its a good idea. People make decisions based on their comfort level, tradition, who their friends are, etc. Suggesting that we should listen to the data disempowers the powerful. It's 2013, and the principles of evidence based medicine were only developed 20 years ago, and are still not widely used in practice. We're going to have to wait centuries before evidence based public policy becomes the norm.
On the other hand, did Dawkins ever even follow up with answers at all?
Yes.
When you see sweeping generalizations about intolerance, religious fundamentalism, and insane foreign policy, just remember that the Bush administration arrested and tortured people in secret prisons with no trials. Does that mean that all ~300,000,000 Americans supported that policy? Should the world now treat all Americans like paranoid war-mongers that embrace pre-emptive war and a police state? Was Bush v Gore definitive evidence that Americans can't hold fair elections?
As an American, yes, yes, and yes.
Support is not writing a brief. Support is indicting the officers in question for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. These officers deserve the same treatment Obama's DOJ gave Aaron Swartz.
There is a difference.
If speech is material support, then banning material support is unconstitutional under the first amendment.
Benefits: We get great new places to live in northern Canada, Siberia, Greenland, etc
While making the tropics, where most of humanity lives, uninhabitable.
Billions of tons of food will be able to be grown where it never has been before
And billions of tons of food will be unable to be grown where it has been before.
It's almost true for books. In 99% of the time, a book from a used book store or library functions identically to a brand new book. Maybe the spine has a crease, but that doesn't really affect your use of the book.
Authors have survived for centuries with people redistributing used books. They will survive for centuries more with people redistributing used ebooks.
You're not kidding. It's already been ruled by the SCOTUS that mere speech amounts to "material support for terrorism". I wouldn't be surprised if Holder argued that speech was combat as well.
When I write, "drug seeking behaviour" in the notes I don't want to show it to the patient, because I know all that is going to happen is I'm going to have to sit there whilst they scream at me until I finally give them the damn Diazepam just to get them out of my hair.
Legalize it so they don't have to lie to you. Problem solved.
drug dealers who wanted to intimidate the local population into silence
Drug dealers are on the side of freedom in the war on drugs. If it weren't for drug dealers putting their freedom and lives on the line, we wouldn't be seeing the tide turning away from prohibition.
If someone lives in a neighborhood terrorized by drug dealers, the right thing to do isn't snitch. It's to lobby to end the war on drugs. Change drug dealers from outlaws to businessmen. After all, when was the last time someone died in a turf war between Anheuser Busch and Coors? Philip Morris and PJ Reynolds? Doesn't happen. Make drugs legal and the only person hurt is the user.
Even though some drug dealers do terrible things, they are still better than the tyrants who demand prohibition. They hold the most responsibility for all the deaths in the war on drugs.
it is the Law, and as a company you cannot flip off the Law and expect to get away with it.
Unless you're a bank.
Everyone rational on both sides agrees that the child deserves a chance to live in all cases
No, everyone rational agrees that until birth, there is no child who deserves anything. The pile of tissues inside the womb has no interests until it becomes a child. The death of an unwanted fetus is no more significant than the removal of any other unwanted growth.
Doctors don't know everything. They're trained to spot the most common problems, but it's really, really easy to stump a doctor. My GF has been having dizzy spells. She went to her GP, who sent her to an ENT, who sent her to an audiologist. None had any ideas.
So she spends some time on Google, and finds out that dizziness can be a side effect of gall bladder attacks(through over stimulation of the vagus nerve which causes a sudden drop of blood pressure). And she had seen the same GP a year earlier about her gall bladder problems. Why didn't the GP pick this up?
No, patients should be encouraged to do as much research as they can. You as a patient care more about your issue than anyone else. You know more about your body than anyone else. You should be a partner with your doctor in your own health care.
If patients had free access to this, it would be very difficult for the physician to document their true findings and impressions for fear of "offending" their patient. This would also jeopardize the relationship between the doctor and patient, which is necessary in any setting.
But witholding this data offends me more than anything that could be inside it, and damages the relationship between me and my doctor. If my doctor cannot be completely honest with me, how can I be completely honest with her?
What else do you think might change if we remove the ability to hold doctors accountable for incompetence?
And such a class would be entirely constitutional.
A book?
I said I was too tired to think.
Some exercise?
How about something relaxing?
The way we regulate fast-food tourism, watch-a-movie tourism, attend-a-ballgame tourism, visit-museum tourism???
Yes, exactly like that. There are regulations protecting the employees in all of those industries.
The solution to that problem is not to get a lighted keyboard, but to get a keyboard without labeled keycaps. They will learn to type by touch quickly.
The game is partly calculated server-side. This is why you need a constant internet connection
You have the causation reversed. The game is calculated server side in order to force you to need a constant internet connection. There is no reason to do this except to act as a form of DRM.
In other news, a sequel to Planescape: Torment got funded on Kickstarter in 6 hours flat. It looks like the good guys are finally winning for once.
The problem is that irresponsible people have always existed and will always exist. How do we ensure their burden on society is minimal? Particularly relevant to this discussion is that irresponsible people come from irresponsible parents, so paying for abortion is likely to increase the responsibility of the average citizen.
If irresponsible people never hurt anyone but themselves, you'd have a good point. But they usually hurt other people as well. In this case, they are hurting an innocent child who deserves to be brought up in a loving family, or not at all.
I'm with you on most of those points. Except for this:
Since the cost of bearing a child falls mostly onto the woman, the father could then basically "freeload" by walking away: the child is there, the woman is now responsible for the cost of raising the child.
You forget that a woman also has the ability to "walk away". If she chooses not to do so, why should that fall on the man?
So, e.g., Focus on the Family is now a left-wing organization?