Or.. there may have been some functional aspects of the site that generated actual business tasks that needed to be handled by real people. Forms and such.
If the 'right in your face' examples of all western nations on planet earth (except us) isn't proof enough that single payer works, then you might as well give up trying to convince people with more facts.
The only academic recognition Sowell has is in the form of awards from conservative institutes.
And checking his wiki page has this nice sentence: "Sowell compared President Barack Obama's actions to Adolf Hitler's in a June 2010 editorial for Investor's Business Daily titled "Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?""
I would find any analysis of economics (or any field) highly suspect, either from a liberal or a conservative, who compared the opposite party's President to Hitler....
My grandpa once casually mentioned that he was on a boat headed to invade Japan when the bomb hit. After it hit they turned around.
Supposedly the beach they were going to storm had predicted casualties in the 60-80% range because of how heavily fortified it was. I have no idea if that is true or if that is what they were just told though.
but I’m honestly at a loss to name any complete proteins that fit those requirements that are cheaper than a McWhatever...
Mixing up your own trail mix from bulk bins would be the simplest and cheapest method. I assume that most grocery stores in other parts (I'm in the NW US), of the country have a bulk section with things like flours, nuts, spices, grains, beans, dried fruits, granola?
Why is this statement taken as unassailable fact around here? Is there some 100% conclusive scientific report that has proven the current level of 'green' technologies unable to meet base load power?
Every time I search for things like "wind solar power base load" I find studies showing how it is possible. I'm tried of re-googling them over and over though. Look them up yourself. Or see how various countries are already using 20% renewable sources, with plans to go to 35% in a decade. And that is with very little economic disruption. Think of how fast and wide the USA could spread renewable energy use if it devoted the amount the Iraq war cost to subsidizing renewable energy. Heck, just repealing the current oil subsidize and given them to renewables would be a magnitude more than we are doing now.
I know one thing for sure, if we just keep saying "impossible" and never start working towards a green energy grid, then it sure will be impossible.
All this arguing over evolution is silly. Faith does not need it, but that doesn't mean that it outright contradicts faith.
It depends on what you have faith in, specifically.
There are many arguments for and against the existence of God. Many of them still, as of right now, are being debated and discussed in Philosophy journals. But one of those arguments, the argument of a god's existence from intelligent design (or any argument that gets God involved in things like evolution, or star formation, etc..), has roundly been crushed by philosophy scholars many many years ago.
For more modern arguments, see things like http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god
I would challenge you to prove that statement. There is nothing inherent in scientific knowledge that would cause a belief in god or faith to shrink. The catholic church is the largest private funder of the sciences, it seems that they wouldn't be doing that if it was going to ultimately cause their demise.
That statement in the context of this discussion is very valid. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps in general. Then click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument .
There are many philosophical approaches arguing for the existence of a god (with debatable levels of success), but arguing that god exists by starting with examples of supposed intelligent design are not valid, and haven't been for a very long time.
And that is basically what all intelligent design people are doing: setting themselves up for failure. You can't base your belief in god on examples in nature. If you do, science will one day just come along and show how X happened by natural processes. God just shrunk.
If you abstract god one layer, like saying "well, he didn't evolve that specific animal, but he set up all the rules and just let it play out", then that still takes you back to a God of the Gaps situation. What if we find that the physical constants of the Universe resulted in evolution/dna/etc.. happening the way it does, and it cannot happen any other way. Then if you still insisted that God was part of the physical world, you'd need to abstract again, "OK, now my god didn't directly come up with the rules of evolution, but the god did create the fundamental physical constants, then that god sat back and watched dna and the rules of evolution mature, which then eventually created that particular animal".
You're basically saying that if you have true faith, you recognize that many areas of science and religion are in conflict, but it is our imperfect understanding of both that is to blame.
So having faith means living with things like errors in personal logic and contradictions in your belief systems.
The issue with 'true faith' is that those contradictory and illogical belief systems can creep into areas where they don't belong. Like science classrooms. If you have the ability to suspend logic about X in order to retain 'true faith' about Y, you'll eventually run into a situation where X is something you really, really shouldn't suspend logic about. Like those people who 'have faith that god will cure sickness' and let their kids die because they won't take them to a hospital.
Requiring foreign companies to host data on servers inside brazil isn't going to achieve anything... They are still foreign corporations, and will be able to access those servers and/or copy data off them at any time they want.
What's really needed, is instead of large centrally controlled services like facebook there should be a large number of distributed but openly interoperable services.
True. So where are these services? Things like P2P social networks?
Well at last count there were dozens of open source projects doing free P2P social networking software. And not a single one has any sizable user base.
Companies with money that can heavily advertise their service will always lead with user count, and always seek to concentrate ownership of competing services by buying others up.
I'm not sure there is any one (or any main) solution to the problem. But it certainly needs to start with laws in the US and worldwide that ban the wholesale eavesdropping on internet traffic.
I'd like to see more large popular websites leading the internet community, (like Google, MSN, Ebay, AOL, etc.. ) have "Did you know?" days where all those pages have messaging about important internet issues like this. And if that doesn't work, more blackouts.
"live in some way approaching equilibrium" "We need to pollute less, period."
Well, see, that's the problem. There is a sizable core of US conservative politicians that do not agree with those two ideas, on a very fundamental level. One of the most notorious for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#Environmental_issues
I can't honestly tell if some of them are using religion as an excuse in order to allow businesses to maximize profit at the cost of the commons, or if most/some/whatever percent of them actually believe the religious angle. Probably a mixture of both.
Or the flips side would have happened: massive pressure from the union for MS to provide a smooth upgrade path from IE6 and to start supporting web standards.
I don't buy the argument that everyone being armed is going to be inherently safer than banning all guns and occasionally dealing with a criminal element.
You can push the argument to extremes on both sides and it becomes clearer to me. Lets say that any citizen is allowed any weapon. Machine guns, grenades, whatever. After all, one of the main arguments in favor of the 2nd amendment, is that it isn't just about personal defense, it is about defense against the government's standing army.
So anything the army has, people can have. So now 1 crazy person can get his hands on a bomb or tank or fighter jet. The resulting massacre would be horrible.
Lets go to the other extreme: all weaponry is banned. Now you are still going to have that 1 crazy person or 1 criminal who will violate the law and obtain a gun or make a bomb, but the chances of it being military grade, or highly effective, are much lower. In fact, just obtaining a gun will become harder and harder over time as guns wear out or are confiscated.
So overall, you will have less deaths if you banned weapons from a society. However, that is zero comfort to the handfuls of people that are killed and unable to defend themselves.
"How's about we work on that problem instead of parroting the same tired shit you hear on Faux News?"
Well, when you look around the world and find education systems that are working, it turns out those systems are involve scary socialistic terms like equality. Or do unthinkable things like ban private 'for profit' education. Or even worse, give all schools the same amount of money.
I wonder how fast our schools would improve if private schools were banned. Every member of congress required to send their kids to Washington DC public schools... hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
Or.. there may have been some functional aspects of the site that generated actual business tasks that needed to be handled by real people. Forms and such.
If the 'right in your face' examples of all western nations on planet earth (except us) isn't proof enough that single payer works, then you might as well give up trying to convince people with more facts.
Folks think this kind of backroom bullshit has been only the last decade or two? try close to a century, probably longer.
Or, you know, since the beginning of the city-state about 5,000+ years ago...
The only academic recognition Sowell has is in the form of awards from conservative institutes.
And checking his wiki page has this nice sentence: "Sowell compared President Barack Obama's actions to Adolf Hitler's in a June 2010 editorial for Investor's Business Daily titled "Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?""
I would find any analysis of economics (or any field) highly suspect, either from a liberal or a conservative, who compared the opposite party's President to Hitler....
Depending on how you define things, it may or may not be a revenue generator. However, trying to quantify that revenue is often very difficult.
My grandpa once casually mentioned that he was on a boat headed to invade Japan when the bomb hit. After it hit they turned around.
Supposedly the beach they were going to storm had predicted casualties in the 60-80% range because of how heavily fortified it was. I have no idea if that is true or if that is what they were just told though.
Eventually it won't require any specific material. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_Peace - check out the nanoforge.
I think a lot of these debates are interesting, but way premature. 3D printing has a long ways to go before it upsets traditional manufacturing.
but I’m honestly at a loss to name any complete proteins that fit those requirements that are cheaper than a McWhatever...
Mixing up your own trail mix from bulk bins would be the simplest and cheapest method. I assume that most grocery stores in other parts (I'm in the NW US), of the country have a bulk section with things like flours, nuts, spices, grains, beans, dried fruits, granola?
Renewable is not there yet to support the people.
Why is this statement taken as unassailable fact around here? Is there some 100% conclusive scientific report that has proven the current level of 'green' technologies unable to meet base load power?
Every time I search for things like "wind solar power base load" I find studies showing how it is possible. I'm tried of re-googling them over and over though. Look them up yourself. Or see how various countries are already using 20% renewable sources, with plans to go to 35% in a decade. And that is with very little economic disruption. Think of how fast and wide the USA could spread renewable energy use if it devoted the amount the Iraq war cost to subsidizing renewable energy. Heck, just repealing the current oil subsidize and given them to renewables would be a magnitude more than we are doing now.
I know one thing for sure, if we just keep saying "impossible" and never start working towards a green energy grid, then it sure will be impossible.
All this arguing over evolution is silly. Faith does not need it, but that doesn't mean that it outright contradicts faith.
It depends on what you have faith in, specifically.
There are many arguments for and against the existence of God. Many of them still, as of right now, are being debated and discussed in Philosophy journals. But one of those arguments, the argument of a god's existence from intelligent design (or any argument that gets God involved in things like evolution, or star formation, etc..), has roundly been crushed by philosophy scholars many many years ago.
For more modern arguments, see things like http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god
As scientific knowledge advances, god shrinks.
I would challenge you to prove that statement. There is nothing inherent in scientific knowledge that would cause a belief in god or faith to shrink. The catholic church is the largest private funder of the sciences, it seems that they wouldn't be doing that if it was going to ultimately cause their demise.
That statement in the context of this discussion is very valid. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps in general. Then click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument .
There are many philosophical approaches arguing for the existence of a god (with debatable levels of success), but arguing that god exists by starting with examples of supposed intelligent design are not valid, and haven't been for a very long time.
And that is basically what all intelligent design people are doing: setting themselves up for failure. You can't base your belief in god on examples in nature. If you do, science will one day just come along and show how X happened by natural processes. God just shrunk.
If you abstract god one layer, like saying "well, he didn't evolve that specific animal, but he set up all the rules and just let it play out", then that still takes you back to a God of the Gaps situation. What if we find that the physical constants of the Universe resulted in evolution/dna/etc.. happening the way it does, and it cannot happen any other way. Then if you still insisted that God was part of the physical world, you'd need to abstract again, "OK, now my god didn't directly come up with the rules of evolution, but the god did create the fundamental physical constants, then that god sat back and watched dna and the rules of evolution mature, which then eventually created that particular animal".
You're basically saying that if you have true faith, you recognize that many areas of science and religion are in conflict, but it is our imperfect understanding of both that is to blame.
So having faith means living with things like errors in personal logic and contradictions in your belief systems.
The issue with 'true faith' is that those contradictory and illogical belief systems can creep into areas where they don't belong. Like science classrooms. If you have the ability to suspend logic about X in order to retain 'true faith' about Y, you'll eventually run into a situation where X is something you really, really shouldn't suspend logic about. Like those people who 'have faith that god will cure sickness' and let their kids die because they won't take them to a hospital.
"As far as I am concerned, science verifies God"
Can you please explain further or provide an example?
Two wrongs don't make a right:)
Requiring foreign companies to host data on servers inside brazil isn't going to achieve anything... They are still foreign corporations, and will be able to access those servers and/or copy data off them at any time they want.
What's really needed, is instead of large centrally controlled services like facebook there should be a large number of distributed but openly interoperable services.
True. So where are these services? Things like P2P social networks?
Well at last count there were dozens of open source projects doing free P2P social networking software. And not a single one has any sizable user base.
Companies with money that can heavily advertise their service will always lead with user count, and always seek to concentrate ownership of competing services by buying others up.
I'm not sure there is any one (or any main) solution to the problem. But it certainly needs to start with laws in the US and worldwide that ban the wholesale eavesdropping on internet traffic.
I'd like to see more large popular websites leading the internet community, (like Google, MSN, Ebay, AOL, etc.. ) have "Did you know?" days where all those pages have messaging about important internet issues like this. And if that doesn't work, more blackouts.
Well, and better health care, better mental health care especially, orders of magnitude less income inequality, social mobility, etc...
2) Putting less pollutants into the air, water, and ground is a good thing.
Not if you make lots of money from selling the polluting stuff.
Or if those pollutants taste really good, like barbecue ;)
"live in some way approaching equilibrium"
"We need to pollute less, period."
Well, see, that's the problem. There is a sizable core of US conservative politicians that do not agree with those two ideas, on a very fundamental level. One of the most notorious for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe#Environmental_issues
I can't honestly tell if some of them are using religion as an excuse in order to allow businesses to maximize profit at the cost of the commons, or if most/some/whatever percent of them actually believe the religious angle. Probably a mixture of both.
Or the flips side would have happened: massive pressure from the union for MS to provide a smooth upgrade path from IE6 and to start supporting web standards.
*I own guns
I don't buy the argument that everyone being armed is going to be inherently safer than banning all guns and occasionally dealing with a criminal element.
You can push the argument to extremes on both sides and it becomes clearer to me. Lets say that any citizen is allowed any weapon. Machine guns, grenades, whatever. After all, one of the main arguments in favor of the 2nd amendment, is that it isn't just about personal defense, it is about defense against the government's standing army.
So anything the army has, people can have. So now 1 crazy person can get his hands on a bomb or tank or fighter jet. The resulting massacre would be horrible.
Lets go to the other extreme: all weaponry is banned. Now you are still going to have that 1 crazy person or 1 criminal who will violate the law and obtain a gun or make a bomb, but the chances of it being military grade, or highly effective, are much lower. In fact, just obtaining a gun will become harder and harder over time as guns wear out or are confiscated.
So overall, you will have less deaths if you banned weapons from a society. However, that is zero comfort to the handfuls of people that are killed and unable to defend themselves.
"How's about we work on that problem instead of parroting the same tired shit you hear on Faux News?"
Well, when you look around the world and find education systems that are working, it turns out those systems are involve scary socialistic terms like equality. Or do unthinkable things like ban private 'for profit' education. Or even worse, give all schools the same amount of money.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html
Isn't NiMH significantly cheaper?
"If you don't like your grocery store, should you try to improve it by continuing to shop there?"
Or maybe we should recognize that the glorious 'free market' isn't the right paradigm to analyze every problem with, nor to solve every problem with.
Just in the US. Check out Finland.
I wonder how fast our schools would improve if private schools were banned. Every member of congress required to send their kids to Washington DC public schools... hehe.