Evolution is not about progress, just adapting to conditions. In your ideal world the selfish would prosper, resulting in a society of assholes. What a wonderful future to aspire to!
You make some good points here but I think your arguments would be much stronger if you discuss:
a) why the nuclear industry has consistently downplayed the severity of the incident at every turn (meltdowns more severe than 'expected', more radiation released than 'expected' - why aren't they honest and releasing worst case figures?
b) why the industry keeps talking about 'design flaws' instead of acknowledging irresponsible cost/risk management practices
c) discuss the social and economic impact of displacing 100,000 people and how this factors into the cost of nuclear
The way the vast majority of nuclear engineers and supporters ignore the negatives and focusing solely on the positives gives me the impression that the industry has a far too narrow focus on certain technical issues and are blissfully unaware of the real and perceived impacts of nuclear technology on the economy and society generally. Before and even after this incident I was a supporter of nuclear energy. However, the industries response to this disaster has pretty much convinced me the industry is incapable of running a nuclear enterprise responsibly.
The point of a Jewish state is that for the first time in modern history, the Jewish people will have a place they are not discriminated against.
That's just wrong. Jews can live quite happily in the US, UK, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc: places where everybody is protected equally. Also they could have created Israel somewhere else. Jews, Christians and Muslims all have equally valid claims to 'belonging' there.
The Jewish state is not meant to be a place where we discriminate others.
But that precisely what it must become! You cannot represent all groups equally when you promise to protect one of them above all.
Granted, things are not perfect, and I agree that it is easier being Jewish in Israel than Arab, but you can just pick any one of Israel's neighbors to see places where the government treats strangers, women and sometimes even its own citizens with a rough hand.
Sure by most standards Israel is better than most of it's neighbours, but that's not saying much. Countries run by dictators are a poor benchmark.
It's always funny when every small slip-up by Israel is covered and shown as a proof to the inhumanity of the Jewish state, when most (if not all) of the Arab states practice human-rights violation on a daily, if not hourly, basis; and with much worse offences.
As above. I'd argue Israeli's and Arabs aren't much different in their US versus THEM attitudes, though the Israeli's are a bit more sophisticated in how they go about it. There really is no reason for Israel to not join the rest of the civilised world and simply bestow equal rights for all. If the Jews are being discriminated against, the perpetrators get taken to court and/or go to jail. Jews are the majority, what do they have to fear?
So they don't crush peaceful protests, that hardly makes them a shining example of democracy. I bet the police's definition of 'peaceful' and 'appropriate force' tends to change depending on who is protesting. If a Jewish state is not going to treat Jews and 'Non-Jews' differently then what is the point of it exactly?
The statistics you quote are probably biased by the fact that most arabs living in Israel would be afraid of answering those questions truthfully for fear of persecution. Also it shouldn't be surprising that muslims want to live in their holy cities. A religious state implies institutionalised prejudice. Israel is and always will be fundamentally flawed.
You're assuming they have a 1:1 ratio of slaves (inmates) to computers. A 1:2 ratio or more would be optimised with half/labour half farming days. Also, there's nothing anyone outside China can do about the labour, but the forced farming should be stopped if possible.
Hanging 10% of all senior financial types on Wall Street from the lampposts of Manhattan to encourage the rest... I'm having problems seeing the down-side of that idea.
That's a great point about offshoring carbon outputs. The Carbon trading model doesn't really seem to take account of this and actually encourages the low cost/high carbon production methods. The steel buyer isn't obligated to pay for the credits, only the steel maker. The buyer just buys the cheapest steel, which is from the country with the weakest carbon pricing model. So steel production flourishes in countries that don't worry about carbon outputs while it flounders in the more progressive nation. A GST-style system where credits are paid by the end user would work but that would require too much international cooperation to be feasable I suppose.
Bullshit! Big companies are in favour of regulation that increases their profit and against regulation that decreases it. Overall they are against it because they can always abuse their dominant position to keep standards low, prices high and competitors out. In the absence of sensible regulation, they can throw their money around, abuse their influence with suppliers and customers, or just flat out abuse those that have no one else to buy from or sell to.
You're right that he's more of an asshat than crazy. However, it would be pretty difficult to be in a position of completely unquestioned power and wealth and not get a little out of touch with reality. Still, having an army of beautiful women devoted to your pleasure would make most men tempted to ignore the suffering of millions of people around them even if they were fully intact upstairs.
He may have been hateful, and maybe even pathetic, but little he was not (actually and figuratively).
Yeah I know that wasn't the right word but it just fit the narrative flow! From what little I've seen of him he has that serene way about him that is typical of many religious nuts. I'm sure he speaks his lies and half truths with beauty and eloquence, but his arguments are no doubt based on a bunch of very ugly premises. He may be a very charismatic and clever guy, which allows him to subtly manipulate his underlings, but experienced lawyers and judges would pull him apart.
Frankly, compared with the "they hate us for our way of life" BS coming from some of our politicians, I have to wonder if our politicians even watched the tapes.
I'm sure they probably didn't bother. Politicians ignorance of the subjects they deal with is exceeded only by the publics general ignorance and apathy. No doubt people in the 'Muslim world' have some genuine grievances about US foreign policy, and many powerful people would have been unhappy with Osama bringing them to light. A good judge wouldn't have provided him much of a platform though. What really disappoints me about this situation is Obama was supposed to be the guy that would actually take on that challenge because it's the right thing to do, but instead he took a very cynical approach and spun the situation hard for his own short-term political advantage.
I think that is incredibly naive. He would be a rallying point.
Maybe, but I think the juxtaposition of western justice versus hateful ramblings would put it in context for a lot of people. For people whose minds are closed there really is nothing you can do about them, but I think a large proportion of the muslim population while not supportive are sympathetic to the cause in some ways. For those people it would make a difference.
For the people that come out of the woodwork openly supporting him, I'd say thanks for the heads up, it's a lot easier fighting you when we know who you are.
I agree with you about surgical strikes on corrupt leaders. However in this case there was no need for the assassination. Bin Laden could have been captured and put on trial. They could have done it in Texas so he'd be killed afterwards anyway. This would have actually been great PR for the west to show that we are actually serious about being nations of laws and due process. It would have also shown Bin Laden to be the pathetic hateful little man he really is and probably convinced some of the more marginal extremist people in the world they are heading down the wrong path. Instead this event will harden those same people because they will see it as proof Americans are hypocrites that, when it suits them, just do whatever the hell they want
Texas and Massachusetts may disagree but they don't have independent armies they can send to the conflict zone! The national identity issue is probably the strongest argument against Europe being a country, since these are much, much more diverse and strongly developed in Europe than the former English colonies that federated. European states have evolved over thousands of years with their own histories, prejudices, languages, and institutions. Comparing Australia to the USA, the relatively short history of the former has led to a much more integrated federation where the difference between the states is almost completely superficial. Very hard to see that happening in Europe ever, let alone any time soon. All member countries will be loathe to dismantle and integrate their institutions. At least they're unlikely to start shooting at each other, since they've tried that unsuccessfully a whole bunch of times and hopefully learned something about it! Macro-economics wise I completely agree with you, but people in the various member countries will be living in vastly different worlds for a long while to come.
Common foreign policy? I guess the Italians, Germans, and French all disagreeing on military action in Libya is just anti-EU propaganda then! Seriously though I think you overstate the predominance of the EU at this time. Economically having a single currency kind of makes them a country I suppose if you're talking about GDP. I think you'd have a hard time convincing Bulgarians and Germans that they lived in the same country though.
I think you'll find that life expectancy has been steadily increasing for the last few hundred years and we mostly work now because we want to buy lots of useless/shiny stuff, not because we really have to. Before capitalism people used to be satisfied with a warm place to sleep and a full belly, even if they had to work from dawn until dusk to achieve it. If they made it passed 30 they'd consider themselves extremely lucky. So actually capitalism is a resounding success according to the measures you selected.
I saw a report the other day stating that the supply of cheap labour is rapidly drying up in China putting pressure on wages. Once they start getting used to their higher wages they'll start expecting better working conditions too. So I think the Chinese are doing okay.
Actually I think his point is only partially valid. In medicine there really isn't any such thing as 'no symptoms' - no ones body operates at 100% efficiency. The problem with diagnosis is it's hard to recognise the point at which you go from being basically fine to basically sick and big changes can happen very rapidly. From my point of view, over diagnosis is better than under diagnosing. It's like the legal system where it's better to let guilty men go free than have a single innocent man go to jail. Except in this case you don't want to let a sick person slip through because the consequences can be just as devastating. Definitely chronic problems should be treated more conservatively than acute ones, but I don't think the article makes the distinction. And just because you diagnose something doesn't mean expensive/invasive treatments should automatically be undertaken.
A lot of people specifically go to a doctor believing they have a problem that requires a pill to fix it. They often aren't interested in making any lifestyle changes because a pill is so much easier. If one doctor doesn't 'find' their problem and give them a pill, they'll go to another one that will. And the drug industry spends so much money everyone that their pills/lasers/etc are the ultimate solution to everything. Then again, people take pills they don't need all the time (e.g. the entire supplement industry) so having 10 people take some pills they don't need for a month to prevent 1 of them ending up in hospital is probably a good result, especially if your only concern is cost to the tax/insurance payer. Obviously the side effects need to be taken into account too.
From a cost perspective, prevention is almost always cheaper. If it's a borderline diagnosis there are probably lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise that could mitigate the risks, or perhaps a conservative treatment option and regular review with an aim to get people off treatment when they improve.
Another problem I'm aware of is it's not so much the actual diagnostic measurement values but how much they are changing. If they are borderline but stable they are probably fine but if they are rapidly going south then early treatment is a good thing.
There's no way this guy could have had a serious illness like the one spoken about and then completely disregard the OPs suffering unless he is a psychopath. REDK didn't just ignore his experience, he actually attacked the guy for having the audacity to talk about it. He could have made his point just fine without doing that. Medicine is a human problem and the human experience shouldn't be so callously disregarded when talking about it.
I've had a serious illness also that took doctors about a week to diagnose and it's scary as hell lying in hospital when noone knows what is wrong with you. Also I'd been to a bunch of different doctors and physios prior to ending up in hospital and none of them took my symptoms that seriously. I WISH one of them had 'over diagnosed' because I may have avoided hospital and the 2 years of my life wasted in recovery.
Wow. Your complete lack of empathy for a human being who has endured so much disgusts me. As does the actions of the morons who decided your comment was informative. In case you didn't realise this article was actually on the topic of misdiagnosis. As you point out, it was specifically on over diagnosis. However, what you failed to realise is the seriously ill person you so cruelly attacked was actually speaking about misdiagnosis in terms of failing to recognise the significance of symptoms. Which is very much on topic and a completely valid and reasonable point to make on the subject at hand. Your attitude clearly demonstrates you have never had a serious illness in your life and have absolutely no concept of the profound effect it has on your life. Doctors are actually aware of this and guess what, they tend to err on the side of caution, because unlike you they actually care about the welfare of other human beings. I certainly hope you never suffer from a serious illness, because I have a feeling that the people in your life (if there are any) will have a similar response to the one you did now, and if they do, you will deserve it.
Slashdot Mirror
uh...I'm sorry that you lack an understanding of hypocrisy
Absolutely, the world ain't fair, but that doesn't mean we can't be. Actually it's an excellent reason for us to try our best.
Evolution is not about progress, just adapting to conditions. In your ideal world the selfish would prosper, resulting in a society of assholes. What a wonderful future to aspire to!
You make some good points here but I think your arguments would be much stronger if you discuss:
a) why the nuclear industry has consistently downplayed the severity of the incident at every turn (meltdowns more severe than 'expected', more radiation released than 'expected' - why aren't they honest and releasing worst case figures?
b) why the industry keeps talking about 'design flaws' instead of acknowledging irresponsible cost/risk management practices
c) discuss the social and economic impact of displacing 100,000 people and how this factors into the cost of nuclear
The way the vast majority of nuclear engineers and supporters ignore the negatives and focusing solely on the positives gives me the impression that the industry has a far too narrow focus on certain technical issues and are blissfully unaware of the real and perceived impacts of nuclear technology on the economy and society generally. Before and even after this incident I was a supporter of nuclear energy. However, the industries response to this disaster has pretty much convinced me the industry is incapable of running a nuclear enterprise responsibly.
The point of a Jewish state is that for the first time in modern history, the Jewish people will have a place they are not discriminated against.
That's just wrong. Jews can live quite happily in the US, UK, most of Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc: places where everybody is protected equally. Also they could have created Israel somewhere else. Jews, Christians and Muslims all have equally valid claims to 'belonging' there.
The Jewish state is not meant to be a place where we discriminate others.
But that precisely what it must become! You cannot represent all groups equally when you promise to protect one of them above all.
Granted, things are not perfect, and I agree that it is easier being Jewish in Israel than Arab, but you can just pick any one of Israel's neighbors to see places where the government treats strangers, women and sometimes even its own citizens with a rough hand.
Sure by most standards Israel is better than most of it's neighbours, but that's not saying much. Countries run by dictators are a poor benchmark.
It's always funny when every small slip-up by Israel is covered and shown as a proof to the inhumanity of the Jewish state, when most (if not all) of the Arab states practice human-rights violation on a daily, if not hourly, basis; and with much worse offences.
As above. I'd argue Israeli's and Arabs aren't much different in their US versus THEM attitudes, though the Israeli's are a bit more sophisticated in how they go about it. There really is no reason for Israel to not join the rest of the civilised world and simply bestow equal rights for all. If the Jews are being discriminated against, the perpetrators get taken to court and/or go to jail. Jews are the majority, what do they have to fear?
So they don't crush peaceful protests, that hardly makes them a shining example of democracy. I bet the police's definition of 'peaceful' and 'appropriate force' tends to change depending on who is protesting. If a Jewish state is not going to treat Jews and 'Non-Jews' differently then what is the point of it exactly?
The statistics you quote are probably biased by the fact that most arabs living in Israel would be afraid of answering those questions truthfully for fear of persecution. Also it shouldn't be surprising that muslims want to live in their holy cities. A religious state implies institutionalised prejudice. Israel is and always will be fundamentally flawed.
This is natural selection at work. The universe wants bogans to be eaten by sharks!
You're assuming they have a 1:1 ratio of slaves (inmates) to computers. A 1:2 ratio or more would be optimised with half/labour half farming days. Also, there's nothing anyone outside China can do about the labour, but the forced farming should be stopped if possible.
Hanging 10% of all senior financial types on Wall Street from the lampposts of Manhattan to encourage the rest... I'm having problems seeing the down-side of that idea.
Seconded!
That's a great point about offshoring carbon outputs. The Carbon trading model doesn't really seem to take account of this and actually encourages the low cost/high carbon production methods. The steel buyer isn't obligated to pay for the credits, only the steel maker. The buyer just buys the cheapest steel, which is from the country with the weakest carbon pricing model. So steel production flourishes in countries that don't worry about carbon outputs while it flounders in the more progressive nation. A GST-style system where credits are paid by the end user would work but that would require too much international cooperation to be feasable I suppose.
He meant no regulations for the rich. Of course the peasants need to be regulated, they are too stupid and lazy to know what's good for them!
Bullshit! Big companies are in favour of regulation that increases their profit and against regulation that decreases it. Overall they are against it because they can always abuse their dominant position to keep standards low, prices high and competitors out. In the absence of sensible regulation, they can throw their money around, abuse their influence with suppliers and customers, or just flat out abuse those that have no one else to buy from or sell to.
You're right that he's more of an asshat than crazy. However, it would be pretty difficult to be in a position of completely unquestioned power and wealth and not get a little out of touch with reality. Still, having an army of beautiful women devoted to your pleasure would make most men tempted to ignore the suffering of millions of people around them even if they were fully intact upstairs.
He may have been hateful, and maybe even pathetic, but little he was not (actually and figuratively).
Yeah I know that wasn't the right word but it just fit the narrative flow! From what little I've seen of him he has that serene way about him that is typical of many religious nuts. I'm sure he speaks his lies and half truths with beauty and eloquence, but his arguments are no doubt based on a bunch of very ugly premises. He may be a very charismatic and clever guy, which allows him to subtly manipulate his underlings, but experienced lawyers and judges would pull him apart.
Frankly, compared with the "they hate us for our way of life" BS coming from some of our politicians, I have to wonder if our politicians even watched the tapes.
I'm sure they probably didn't bother. Politicians ignorance of the subjects they deal with is exceeded only by the publics general ignorance and apathy. No doubt people in the 'Muslim world' have some genuine grievances about US foreign policy, and many powerful people would have been unhappy with Osama bringing them to light. A good judge wouldn't have provided him much of a platform though. What really disappoints me about this situation is Obama was supposed to be the guy that would actually take on that challenge because it's the right thing to do, but instead he took a very cynical approach and spun the situation hard for his own short-term political advantage.
I think that is incredibly naive. He would be a rallying point.
Maybe, but I think the juxtaposition of western justice versus hateful ramblings would put it in context for a lot of people. For people whose minds are closed there really is nothing you can do about them, but I think a large proportion of the muslim population while not supportive are sympathetic to the cause in some ways. For those people it would make a difference.
For the people that come out of the woodwork openly supporting him, I'd say thanks for the heads up, it's a lot easier fighting you when we know who you are.
I agree with you about surgical strikes on corrupt leaders. However in this case there was no need for the assassination. Bin Laden could have been captured and put on trial. They could have done it in Texas so he'd be killed afterwards anyway. This would have actually been great PR for the west to show that we are actually serious about being nations of laws and due process. It would have also shown Bin Laden to be the pathetic hateful little man he really is and probably convinced some of the more marginal extremist people in the world they are heading down the wrong path. Instead this event will harden those same people because they will see it as proof Americans are hypocrites that, when it suits them, just do whatever the hell they want
Texas and Massachusetts may disagree but they don't have independent armies they can send to the conflict zone! The national identity issue is probably the strongest argument against Europe being a country, since these are much, much more diverse and strongly developed in Europe than the former English colonies that federated. European states have evolved over thousands of years with their own histories, prejudices, languages, and institutions. Comparing Australia to the USA, the relatively short history of the former has led to a much more integrated federation where the difference between the states is almost completely superficial. Very hard to see that happening in Europe ever, let alone any time soon. All member countries will be loathe to dismantle and integrate their institutions. At least they're unlikely to start shooting at each other, since they've tried that unsuccessfully a whole bunch of times and hopefully learned something about it! Macro-economics wise I completely agree with you, but people in the various member countries will be living in vastly different worlds for a long while to come.
I see you view at -1 as well! I'm glad someone appreciates my 'trolling.' Maybe I'll be a bit nicer next time I point out someone is being an asshat!
Common foreign policy? I guess the Italians, Germans, and French all disagreeing on military action in Libya is just anti-EU propaganda then! Seriously though I think you overstate the predominance of the EU at this time. Economically having a single currency kind of makes them a country I suppose if you're talking about GDP. I think you'd have a hard time convincing Bulgarians and Germans that they lived in the same country though.
I think you'll find that life expectancy has been steadily increasing for the last few hundred years and we mostly work now because we want to buy lots of useless/shiny stuff, not because we really have to. Before capitalism people used to be satisfied with a warm place to sleep and a full belly, even if they had to work from dawn until dusk to achieve it. If they made it passed 30 they'd consider themselves extremely lucky. So actually capitalism is a resounding success according to the measures you selected.
I saw a report the other day stating that the supply of cheap labour is rapidly drying up in China putting pressure on wages. Once they start getting used to their higher wages they'll start expecting better working conditions too. So I think the Chinese are doing okay.
Actually I think his point is only partially valid. In medicine there really isn't any such thing as 'no symptoms' - no ones body operates at 100% efficiency. The problem with diagnosis is it's hard to recognise the point at which you go from being basically fine to basically sick and big changes can happen very rapidly. From my point of view, over diagnosis is better than under diagnosing. It's like the legal system where it's better to let guilty men go free than have a single innocent man go to jail. Except in this case you don't want to let a sick person slip through because the consequences can be just as devastating. Definitely chronic problems should be treated more conservatively than acute ones, but I don't think the article makes the distinction. And just because you diagnose something doesn't mean expensive/invasive treatments should automatically be undertaken.
A lot of people specifically go to a doctor believing they have a problem that requires a pill to fix it. They often aren't interested in making any lifestyle changes because a pill is so much easier. If one doctor doesn't 'find' their problem and give them a pill, they'll go to another one that will. And the drug industry spends so much money everyone that their pills/lasers/etc are the ultimate solution to everything. Then again, people take pills they don't need all the time (e.g. the entire supplement industry) so having 10 people take some pills they don't need for a month to prevent 1 of them ending up in hospital is probably a good result, especially if your only concern is cost to the tax/insurance payer. Obviously the side effects need to be taken into account too.
From a cost perspective, prevention is almost always cheaper. If it's a borderline diagnosis there are probably lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise that could mitigate the risks, or perhaps a conservative treatment option and regular review with an aim to get people off treatment when they improve.
Another problem I'm aware of is it's not so much the actual diagnostic measurement values but how much they are changing. If they are borderline but stable they are probably fine but if they are rapidly going south then early treatment is a good thing.
This is completely unfounded.
There's no way this guy could have had a serious illness like the one spoken about and then completely disregard the OPs suffering unless he is a psychopath. REDK didn't just ignore his experience, he actually attacked the guy for having the audacity to talk about it. He could have made his point just fine without doing that. Medicine is a human problem and the human experience shouldn't be so callously disregarded when talking about it.
I've had a serious illness also that took doctors about a week to diagnose and it's scary as hell lying in hospital when noone knows what is wrong with you. Also I'd been to a bunch of different doctors and physios prior to ending up in hospital and none of them took my symptoms that seriously. I WISH one of them had 'over diagnosed' because I may have avoided hospital and the 2 years of my life wasted in recovery.
Wow. Your complete lack of empathy for a human being who has endured so much disgusts me. As does the actions of the morons who decided your comment was informative. In case you didn't realise this article was actually on the topic of misdiagnosis. As you point out, it was specifically on over diagnosis. However, what you failed to realise is the seriously ill person you so cruelly attacked was actually speaking about misdiagnosis in terms of failing to recognise the significance of symptoms. Which is very much on topic and a completely valid and reasonable point to make on the subject at hand. Your attitude clearly demonstrates you have never had a serious illness in your life and have absolutely no concept of the profound effect it has on your life. Doctors are actually aware of this and guess what, they tend to err on the side of caution, because unlike you they actually care about the welfare of other human beings. I certainly hope you never suffer from a serious illness, because I have a feeling that the people in your life (if there are any) will have a similar response to the one you did now, and if they do, you will deserve it.
woosh!!