Why would I spit on the military? What they do is necessary.
What university offers is a chance, not a guarantee. A chance that that kid who comes from a small town with evangelical parents might hear some things his town and family didn't plan. A chance that the kid whose family told him that not to be of a particular ethnic group marks someone as inferior. A chance that the kid whose high school science teacher believes in astrology might be exposed to actual science. A chance that the kid raised in a Yeshiva might meet some Muslims and get along well with them. No guarantees, but a shot. (Of course, these are stereotypes, but they are also often real, and I can put names to people in these situations and more that I saw when I went through college).
Human brains are not fully developed in high school. In university, one is exposed to a variety of ideas as part of general education (apart from one's major(s)). Students rub shoulders with people who believe different things, often have different faiths, are of different races, and have different backgrounds. It's one's only real shot to learn and grow outside the controlled environment of the home or a small town. That's precious.
You're storing it in the wrong format - there are all sorts of tools to convert to Analyse or DICOM format, which give you a managable frame-by-frame set of images rather than one huge one. Most tools to manipulate MRI data expect DICOM or Analyse anyhow (BrainVoyager, NISTools, etc).
If you really want to keep it all safe, use tarfiles to hold structured data, although if you do that you've made it big again.
Removable media are a daft long-term storage - use ad-hoc removable media solutions (or more ideally, scp) to move the data.
College is a mix of vocational training (particularly important for some professions) and personal growth in the "learn to be a good citizen" sense. It's socially irresponsible to encourage people cut back on the latter, and being lax on the former results in a lot of "not seeing the big picture" kind of thing. I suppose it might be good for businesses that want to lock their employees into working for them long-term, but it's bad for society.
Many of the earliest examples of corruption were blatant enough that they practically self-announced. Lawrence Lessig has spoken/written extensively on the issue - check out his videos at http://lessig.org/
It's hardly recent. Look at the early days of our nation and you'll find systemic corruption on even broader scales. Things are bad, sure, but they were even worse(!).
Regardless of how true it is that a lot of strong opinions are attached to people who are highly ignorant, people don't want to hear that. Tell it to them, and they not only won't vote for you, they'll consider burning down your house.
True - by mentioning it as I did, I wasn't meaning to advocate or compare it - were we to try to do an honest and thoughtful discussion on the topic, it'd take months (but probably would also be quite interesting).
There's a system we have called common law, where judges actually do play an active (although very subdued) role in protecting the public good, flexibly interpreting law, and other uses of judgement. "Judicial activism" has been part of the system for longer than we've been a nation.
The happiness of having a healthy child and watching them grow into adults (rather than watching them die and trying to mitigate that trauma) is a deeper, more meaningful happiness than giving a kid some toys.
It'd be better to instead funnel that money to funds for research on diseases that tend to strike people down. Between spending money on a party for someone who's probably going to die and spending that same money on research towards treatments that stop families and communities from losing those people, the latter is a much better use of funds.
Some of us, regrettably, have seen business practices not entirely dissimilar to this in places we've worked. "I found a bug that could cause our really important software service to crash" "Don't fix it - wait until someone on a service contract reports it". Sigh.
I believe that's true in Britain as well - neither system requires that doctors join the government programme, so there are some doctors who are private but most are public. The conversations I've had with people using the system (I used to date a dual-national with a french family, and my family also had some family friends in France) suggested that relying on the public system, even for specialists, was quite doable. The difference between the French and British models is not huge from what I understand (even if France doesn't go quite as far). I would prefer healthcare be as close to being fully single-payer as possible (still letting people choose their doctor, but making "better deals" impossible - health care shouldn't be part of economic reasoning on the side of individuals), but I'd be willing to accept anything sufficiently far towards that goal even if it's not quite right - our health care system here serves most people very poorly.
but you still have a system where the wealthy can get better health care than everyone else.
Nothing you can do will 'fix' that - that's a fact of life in all things, not just health care.
We can flatten the curve, and in doing so better the lot of society in general.
Allowing everyone autonomy in healthcare is more of a mess than anything else
Bullshit. Seriously - like the current system of fairly restricted autonomy isn't the worst mess in the developed world? Of all the socialized systems the one that is the most effective is the one in France which is also the one with the most autonomy.
I suspect we're not defining autonomy in the same way - the French system (like the British system) is one of which I generally approve, primarily because in both, most people don't need or use private healthcare and the funding comes from state funds. People can't opt out of their taxes supporting that -- that's the kind of autonomy I feel is harmful. Within the system, letting people choose their doctors, within reason, isn't something that I'm against. But then, most socialised systems provide some degree of that..
So I'm not sure if we agree or disagree - what do *you* mean by autonomy?
Why should poor people get worse care? Why should rich people get better care? If society has the resources for $300 worth of care and 20 people, giving the rich guy $230 worth of treatment which covers emergencies, regular care, and elective surgery while the other 19 only get emergency and occasional regular care - that's not a just system.
The carrot and stick in economic logic is best laid-out *after* the basics for a reasonable life are laid, not before. When everyone has adequate health care, some minimal expectation of food and housing, and the other things they need for a decent life, *then* we might think about allowing hard workers and skilled workers some perks.
If those vouchers were nontransferrable (between people), that might be less bad, but you still have a system where the wealthy can get better health care than everyone else. Allowing everyone autonomy in healthcare is more of a mess than anything else, and it really doesn't benefit anyone but the well-off (well, and providing high-fives to libertarians, which is more of a minus than a plus).
We'll learn to deal with the fact that people mature over time and the things they do when very young might not represent them when they're older. This lengthening of memories should let us mature a bit rather than try to hide in the bush.
Ok, I guess that's maybe fair, but it's an enormously difficult task to tie that to genes with just one sample, and the before/after stuff would be entirely worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I spit on the military? What they do is necessary.
What university offers is a chance, not a guarantee. A chance that that kid who comes from a small town with evangelical parents might hear some things his town and family didn't plan. A chance that the kid whose family told him that not to be of a particular ethnic group marks someone as inferior. A chance that the kid whose high school science teacher believes in astrology might be exposed to actual science. A chance that the kid raised in a Yeshiva might meet some Muslims and get along well with them. No guarantees, but a shot. (Of course, these are stereotypes, but they are also often real, and I can put names to people in these situations and more that I saw when I went through college).
Human brains are not fully developed in high school. In university, one is exposed to a variety of ideas as part of general education (apart from one's major(s)). Students rub shoulders with people who believe different things, often have different faiths, are of different races, and have different backgrounds. It's one's only real shot to learn and grow outside the controlled environment of the home or a small town. That's precious.
You're storing it in the wrong format - there are all sorts of tools to convert to Analyse or DICOM format, which give you a managable frame-by-frame set of images rather than one huge one. Most tools to manipulate MRI data expect DICOM or Analyse anyhow (BrainVoyager, NISTools, etc).
If you really want to keep it all safe, use tarfiles to hold structured data, although if you do that you've made it big again.
Removable media are a daft long-term storage - use ad-hoc removable media solutions (or more ideally, scp) to move the data.
College is a mix of vocational training (particularly important for some professions) and personal growth in the "learn to be a good citizen" sense. It's socially irresponsible to encourage people cut back on the latter, and being lax on the former results in a lot of "not seeing the big picture" kind of thing. I suppose it might be good for businesses that want to lock their employees into working for them long-term, but it's bad for society.
Many of the earliest examples of corruption were blatant enough that they practically self-announced. Lawrence Lessig has spoken/written extensively on the issue - check out his videos at http://lessig.org/
It's hardly recent. Look at the early days of our nation and you'll find systemic corruption on even broader scales. Things are bad, sure, but they were even worse(!).
Regardless of how true it is that a lot of strong opinions are attached to people who are highly ignorant, people don't want to hear that. Tell it to them, and they not only won't vote for you, they'll consider burning down your house.
User Access Verification
Password:
sparky>enable
Password:
sparky# config term
sparky(config)# interface Gi0/44
sparky(config-if)#
Oh the fun I'd have with my Cisco tablet :)
This is about the worst example one might make to argue for privacy. If you're sleeping around on your wife, you deserve whatever you get.
Saying this out loud inspires marriage proposals.
True - by mentioning it as I did, I wasn't meaning to advocate or compare it - were we to try to do an honest and thoughtful discussion on the topic, it'd take months (but probably would also be quite interesting).
There's a system we have called common law, where judges actually do play an active (although very subdued) role in protecting the public good, flexibly interpreting law, and other uses of judgement. "Judicial activism" has been part of the system for longer than we've been a nation.
The happiness of having a healthy child and watching them grow into adults (rather than watching them die and trying to mitigate that trauma) is a deeper, more meaningful happiness than giving a kid some toys.
What an insightful response. I'm sure you've convinced a lot of people.
It'd be better to instead funnel that money to funds for research on diseases that tend to strike people down. Between spending money on a party for someone who's probably going to die and spending that same money on research towards treatments that stop families and communities from losing those people, the latter is a much better use of funds.
I don't want to create trouble for myself or other people so I can't disclose details. Sorry.
True. Also the nature of the product.
Some of us, regrettably, have seen business practices not entirely dissimilar to this in places we've worked. "I found a bug that could cause our really important software service to crash" "Don't fix it - wait until someone on a service contract reports it". Sigh.
I believe that's true in Britain as well - neither system requires that doctors join the government programme, so there are some doctors who are private but most are public. The conversations I've had with people using the system (I used to date a dual-national with a french family, and my family also had some family friends in France) suggested that relying on the public system, even for specialists, was quite doable. The difference between the French and British models is not huge from what I understand (even if France doesn't go quite as far). I would prefer healthcare be as close to being fully single-payer as possible (still letting people choose their doctor, but making "better deals" impossible - health care shouldn't be part of economic reasoning on the side of individuals), but I'd be willing to accept anything sufficiently far towards that goal even if it's not quite right - our health care system here serves most people very poorly.
but you still have a system where the wealthy can get better health care than everyone else.
Nothing you can do will 'fix' that - that's a fact of life in all things, not just health care.
We can flatten the curve, and in doing so better the lot of society in general.
Allowing everyone autonomy in healthcare is more of a mess than anything else
Bullshit. Seriously - like the current system of fairly restricted autonomy isn't the worst mess in the developed world?
Of all the socialized systems the one that is the most effective is the one in France which is also the one with the most autonomy.
I suspect we're not defining autonomy in the same way - the French system (like the British system) is one of which I generally approve, primarily because in both, most people don't need or use private healthcare and the funding comes from state funds. People can't opt out of their taxes supporting that -- that's the kind of autonomy I feel is harmful. Within the system, letting people choose their doctors, within reason, isn't something that I'm against. But then, most socialised systems provide some degree of that..
So I'm not sure if we agree or disagree - what do *you* mean by autonomy?
Why should poor people get worse care? Why should rich people get better care? If society has the resources for $300 worth of care and 20 people, giving the rich guy $230 worth of treatment which covers emergencies, regular care, and elective surgery while the other 19 only get emergency and occasional regular care - that's not a just system.
The carrot and stick in economic logic is best laid-out *after* the basics for a reasonable life are laid, not before. When everyone has adequate health care, some minimal expectation of food and housing, and the other things they need for a decent life, *then* we might think about allowing hard workers and skilled workers some perks.
If those vouchers were nontransferrable (between people), that might be less bad, but you still have a system where the wealthy can get better health care than everyone else. Allowing everyone autonomy in healthcare is more of a mess than anything else, and it really doesn't benefit anyone but the well-off (well, and providing high-fives to libertarians, which is more of a minus than a plus).
Teaching kids to wear highly electric pants (as the pictured hero seems to) in a flood seems unwise.
We'll learn to deal with the fact that people mature over time and the things they do when very young might not represent them when they're older. This lengthening of memories should let us mature a bit rather than try to hide in the bush.
Ok, I guess that's maybe fair, but it's an enormously difficult task to tie that to genes with just one sample, and the before/after stuff would be entirely worthless.