No I mean that the arbitrary rules of logic and construction that are mathematics do not control or define the laws of the universe. Math is a language no different than any other language. The fact that I can describe something in English doesn't make what I describe a reality. Why would something I can describe in math be any more real?
No it wasn't. It was about coloring regions of an area when the regions are restricted to certain arbitrary criteria. For example it does not apply to non-contiguous regions.
You're ignoring the nature of the program, which aims to embody the standard model well enough to make predictions about reality for phenomena that it's not been possible to directly observe. It's a little more than just a program that spits out arbitrary but predictable results, since the results do in fact have some relation to reality. If the model is any good at all, the correspondence will be very good.
If you can't observe the phenomena in the real world, then how do you know the model has any correspondence? Or are you going to say that my computer model of classical mechanics is proof that general relativity is incorrect?
You must also believe that computer models of aerodynamics that predict a racecar will experience less drag than a Hummer also have no connection to reality and truth. I'd argue that to the extent that a model makes accurate predictions again and again, there is some connection to reality and truth.
I would suggest you re-read my post and consider this phrase:
...cannot expand (or confirm) the frontiers of [scientific] research...
I absolutely agree that you can use computer models in engineering. But the computer model showing a race car has less drag than a Hummer isn't expanding your knowledge of fluid dynamics. It's allowing you to apply what you already have established as the rules to different situations. It will not allow you to prove or disprove new rules for fluid dynamics.
I'm pretty sure Haken and Appel would take exception to that.
What did they model? The answer is: nothing, because math is not reality. They used a computer to create a proof of a mathematical problem. The rules of the problem do not map, or even purport to map, to the real world.
From this article, we learn that computer modeling confirmed something "about the behavior of quarks".
Computer models cannot expand (or confirm) the frontiers of any research of any kind. All this has done is said "We made a computer program that gives us the results we would expect from running this computer program." Nothing in computer modeling makes a connection to reality and truth.
Yeah. The state will have totally lost when they block all direct connectivity and only allow net access through application level proxies. I'm curious how you think any significant bandwidth will then be leveraged through the uni network by the students for copyright infringing purposes?
I agree with the sentiment that universities (and the tax payers) not fund networks that won't be used properly. I realize that a lot of people do use the networks for perfectly valid uses, according to the evidence the bulk of traffic on educational networks is not legitimate (legitimate being for the purposes of education or legal personal uses.)
However it should be noted that ISPs are not common carriers.
The amazing thing is that many students are learning occupations that are dependent on IP and yet continue to ignore it. I wonder who they expect to provide them a paycheck once they become producers? Or would they rather go the inefficient route of millions of one-offs?
I own my own house, my mortgage is about $500, taxes, insurances, etc... bring my monthly mortgage check up to $750. The car is another $300. Probably $200 a month in diesel. Another $300+ for gas, water, and electric. $100 for cable and internet. Another $70 for cell phones. $100 a month for car insurance. Probably $200 a month for house maintenance. Another $400+ a month in food. Maybe $300 a month in entertainment/hobbies. And that's not even getting into the horses or any of the medical costs!
I'm talking about the described individual in the poster's story. The one what owns the house, not the one that has a mortgage on a house. No mortgage payment. I can't speak for your family, but $400/mo for food seems pretty high. And, sorry, but the rest of society has zero interest in offsetting your health care (or aspect of your personal life) so you can put $300/mo into hobbies and entertainment. And your $100/mo cable and internet bill? You sound as bad as those who apply for food stamps because they don't make enough money for food (and alcohol and tobacco.) The ones who do their grocery shopping at Seven Eleven and have to separate their items into two piles so they can use their cash to pay for their "necessities" (beer, smokes, junk) and their food stamps card to pay for their food.
That's the thing though, isn't it? Except for a miniscule number of people who really get the short end of the straw and are afflicted with some terrible illness at an age less than 20, there's no reason for a person to not have money socked away. You can go ahead and tell me how hard someone's life is, but honestly anyone can put some money away. Oh, and for your hypothetical short-order cook or welfare mother? Try medicaid.
You need to read the book before you try to analyze what it's saying. They are millionaires because they made themselves that way. Not because they inherited it, are criminals, or amoral as you claimed in your first post.
I'm not sure the point you are making by mentioning that "most people who go on to medical school are from upper middle class" families, as in the passage you quoted only 6% of millionaires are MDs. That leaves the other 94% as not being doctors.
However (to be mostly incoherent in this post) my response was not a defense to my original post, but merely to your post with it's claims and characterizations of the wealthy and middle class. They are not where they are because they are stealing from the poor. They are where they are because they chose a lifestyle that the majority of people in the world don't choose. Very few people choose to sacrifice today so that their future will be better.
No, I was just told a story by someone who can't even take the time to lookup which laws are relevant to the situation. The story was no more reality than your average night of WWE.
Here's some problems with his story:
- $6000 year maximum? Not at any job I've ever had. Think $1500 for deductibles and then you're done paying. Everything beyond that goes on the policy. - EMTALA is a subsection of COBRA and has nothing to do with continued coverage after termination. It has to do with refusing coverage and transferring patients. Another section of COBRA says is that after you leave your job, you can continue to pay the premium at the rate the company paid. No company pays $700/mo for their normal employees. The number is in the area of $200-$300/mo. - Employers with medical coverage also offer short term and long term disability coverage. For about $10/mo you're covered in the amount of 70-80% of your salary for varying lengths of time depending on the specific program. You don't need to stop receiving a paycheck because you're sick. - $2000/mo in expenses (not including a mortgage or rent)? I don't think so. My entire cost of living including rent, car payment, food, utilities, gas, auto insurance, etc. is about $2200/mo. Over half of that is rent. Someone who already owns their home (as posited in his story) will have living expenses in the sub $700 range. Add in his $400/mo meds and you're only at $1100. - For a home owner you're looking at somewhere around $100,000 (minimum) in equity that can be tapped. More likely in the area of $250,000 and possibly as high as $500,000-$1,000,000 (in the north east/north west metro areas.)
He wanted to tell a story, and I'm fine with that. But don't think that his work of fiction is common. His story churned through $50,000 in 18 months. According to this the average cancer patient runs $36,000 in uncovered medical bills. The average seriously ill patient has $13,000. And these are the people who are declaring bankruptcy. Which is the point I was making. People who are prepared won't have this problem as they have been living prudently and have some savings set aside for a rainy day.
Using the corner cases to determine your health care policy is dumb as they will suck up 100% of your resources.
Incorrect. What has actually taken place in such case is that the environment has changed: it now includes the fact that the group takes care of its weaker members. The group itself will likely also be more adapted, that is, more able to pass its genetic material onward, since its members are now less likely to die before getting offspring, resulting in population growth and greater genetic variability - and thus greater ability to adapt to meet future challenges.
Your bullshit argument is known as Social Darwinism, and has caused quite enough damage to this world and mankind by acting as a thin rationalization for selfish evil, so kindly stop it.
It is true that adaption happens at the individual level. Since the first word of your post is wrong, how about you actually argue a valid case. Additionally "ability to adapt" is not a genetic trait.
As far as my being selfish and evil, if you want to compare charitable acts I'm willing to meet somewhere and compare. We can make a video and put the results on youtube so that anytime you decide to get preachy everybody will be able to see that you speak more than you act.
The evolution that you speak of involves economics as much as it does biology. Those at the economic apex of wealth get there through accidents of luck (e.g. born into wealth, gambling addict lucked-out on a lottery ticket, etc), gross illegal activity (e.g. bank robbers, mafia hit men), manipulation or dishonesty (sales people, CEOs, union-busters; like the asshats in the auto-industry hiring detectives to find any type of dirt on Ralph Nader when he lobbied for safety regulations for automobiles, or more recently Dick Cheney and Haliburton).
That's an amazing statement. You do realize that the majority of millionaires in the US are self made, first generation? That they are rich because they've worked hard and lived frugally? Given that you have such a core fact wrong, I'm not sure how much to take away from the rest of your argument. Before you get too excited about class warfare, go read "The Millionaire Next Door" (the first chapter, and crapipedia's take) to get some facts about those you are painting as evil, criminal and amoral. You should also read "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Both books should be available in your local library.
It not only sounds heartless and uncivilized, it actually is. Do you really want a society where there's legless people scrawling around on skateboards begging for food because they're "fundamentally broken down"? It wasn't that long ago we did, and I consider it progress that the developed world mostly doesn't have that anymore. Evolution has really nothing to do with it.
First, you didn't answer my question. Before I'm willing to agree to paying for the health care for everyone, I want to know at what point we say "Sorry, it's literally going to take 10% of our GDP to provide you with another three days of life. We can't pay that." What are the numbers? And tell me what is the cap you're going to put on your quality of life so that this new kind of insurance you are advocating for can be in place. (The new kind of insurance that, unlike every other form of insurance, doesn't consider the risk factors involved.)
Second, someone without legs isn't broken down. I think they have a great ability to contribute. If you want to know about broken down, consider Terry Schiavo where the majority of her brain was gone. Or how about someone who is eighty years old and just diagnosed with a brain tumor and given three months to live under the best of circumstances? What about someone who has job, who could afford health insurance but chooses not to participate in the available program so that they can take an extra $60/mo home to buy five packs of cigarettes a week instead? Or someone who drinks a couple liters of hard liquor a day even though they've destroyed their liver and have to go for dialysis four times a week to stay alive while waiting to get to the front of the organ recipient list. What are you going to do about the twenty year old woman with six kids and no marketable skills and no indication that there is any intent on not having six more kids in the next five years?
I'm not sure what the big alternative is here for people who are "fundamentally broken". Death?
No, I don't think we should be killing people who can have some functional life. I don't know what to do either. At a personal level I hate seeing people who are down, but I'm not crazy enough to think that giving them money will change their situation.
Adaption happens at the level of individuals. When groups develop that protect their less adapted members, the group as a whole becomes less well adapted. It has nothing to do with qualitative judgments and is entirely objective.
As to the rest of your comment, I'll just point out that the majority of charitable giving is done by those who think the government should stay out of it and those who give the least think the government should be involved. Anytime I hear someone telling me that the government needs to involved in solving social issues, what I know I'm really hearing is someone who wants the government to be involved in direct wealth redistribution.
So, you are working hard at your job, have no consumer debt, own your home, and have $50,000 in savings (much better than most Americans, but lets go for a best case scenario.) Then you get diagnosed with cancer. So you start undergoing treatment, but because of the toll on your health, you have to quit your job. Your EMTALA mandated coverage is $700 a month for you, but you elect to pay it because otherwise you will be unable to receive your treatment. It will take $12,800 of your savings, but that is your first priority.
EMTALA? No. COBRA. I pay whatever my company pays for the same coverage. We're talking in the area of $200/mo. I'm not even going to try to answer the rest of your story because it has no substantial basis in reality. Is it possible? Perhaps. But you made it up. I've never had a job with the health insurance terms as bad as you've stated.
Of course, there will always be people not paying, living as unhealthy as possible (obesitas, alcohol, smoking, driving in cars, etc), but in the end would it not be nice to know that your health is save no matter what happens with you economically?
No. Because no one is subject to random economic events. Yes, people unexpectedly lose their jobs, but anyone who is well prepared won't be subject to significant risk because of that. They will have savings set aside and they understand that they will have the (federally mandated) option to continue their current coverage for up to 18 months if they chose to pay.
I'm curious. Do you believe in evolution? I know it may sound heartless and uncivilized, but at what point is a person who is fundamentally broken down kicked off the public teat? Societies formed so that the participating parties would be able to do things that are in their best interest but that they could not do for themselves, not so that they could do things that they can do for themselves or are not in their best interest.
To use a real life example, does it make sense that the people in Nebraska should have to carry the insurance burden for the people who choose to live in hurricane alley? That's what Florida thinks should be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
No I mean that the arbitrary rules of logic and construction that are mathematics do not control or define the laws of the universe. Math is a language no different than any other language. The fact that I can describe something in English doesn't make what I describe a reality. Why would something I can describe in math be any more real?
You'd be surprised at how many people don't understand that fact.
No it wasn't. It was about coloring regions of an area when the regions are restricted to certain arbitrary criteria. For example it does not apply to non-contiguous regions.
If you can't observe the phenomena in the real world, then how do you know the model has any correspondence? Or are you going to say that my computer model of classical mechanics is proof that general relativity is incorrect?
I would suggest you re-read my post and consider this phrase:
I absolutely agree that you can use computer models in engineering. But the computer model showing a race car has less drag than a Hummer isn't expanding your knowledge of fluid dynamics. It's allowing you to apply what you already have established as the rules to different situations. It will not allow you to prove or disprove new rules for fluid dynamics.
What did they model? The answer is: nothing, because math is not reality. They used a computer to create a proof of a mathematical problem. The rules of the problem do not map, or even purport to map, to the real world.
Computer models cannot expand (or confirm) the frontiers of any research of any kind. All this has done is said "We made a computer program that gives us the results we would expect from running this computer program." Nothing in computer modeling makes a connection to reality and truth.
Redhat's revenues are meaningless wrt efficiency of the support model.
That'd be why I said:
Because selling "services" is kind of the inefficient way to work.
Yeah. The state will have totally lost when they block all direct connectivity and only allow net access through application level proxies. I'm curious how you think any significant bandwidth will then be leveraged through the uni network by the students for copyright infringing purposes?
I agree with the sentiment that universities (and the tax payers) not fund networks that won't be used properly. I realize that a lot of people do use the networks for perfectly valid uses, according to the evidence the bulk of traffic on educational networks is not legitimate (legitimate being for the purposes of education or legal personal uses.)
However it should be noted that ISPs are not common carriers.
The amazing thing is that many students are learning occupations that are dependent on IP and yet continue to ignore it. I wonder who they expect to provide them a paycheck once they become producers? Or would they rather go the inefficient route of millions of one-offs?
I'm talking about the described individual in the poster's story. The one what owns the house, not the one that has a mortgage on a house. No mortgage payment. I can't speak for your family, but $400/mo for food seems pretty high. And, sorry, but the rest of society has zero interest in offsetting your health care (or aspect of your personal life) so you can put $300/mo into hobbies and entertainment. And your $100/mo cable and internet bill? You sound as bad as those who apply for food stamps because they don't make enough money for food (and alcohol and tobacco.) The ones who do their grocery shopping at Seven Eleven and have to separate their items into two piles so they can use their cash to pay for their "necessities" (beer, smokes, junk) and their food stamps card to pay for their food.
He's Australian. He does (or used to) work for Symantec. Does reverse engineering type shit. Fairly smart, but not really grown up yet.
That's the thing though, isn't it? Except for a miniscule number of people who really get the short end of the straw and are afflicted with some terrible illness at an age less than 20, there's no reason for a person to not have money socked away. You can go ahead and tell me how hard someone's life is, but honestly anyone can put some money away. Oh, and for your hypothetical short-order cook or welfare mother? Try medicaid.
Check.
You need to read the book before you try to analyze what it's saying. They are millionaires because they made themselves that way. Not because they inherited it, are criminals, or amoral as you claimed in your first post.
I'm not sure the point you are making by mentioning that "most people who go on to medical school are from upper middle class" families, as in the passage you quoted only 6% of millionaires are MDs. That leaves the other 94% as not being doctors.
However (to be mostly incoherent in this post) my response was not a defense to my original post, but merely to your post with it's claims and characterizations of the wealthy and middle class. They are not where they are because they are stealing from the poor. They are where they are because they chose a lifestyle that the majority of people in the world don't choose. Very few people choose to sacrifice today so that their future will be better.
No, I was just told a story by someone who can't even take the time to lookup which laws are relevant to the situation. The story was no more reality than your average night of WWE.
Here's some problems with his story:
- $6000 year maximum? Not at any job I've ever had. Think $1500 for deductibles and then you're done paying. Everything beyond that goes on the policy.
- EMTALA is a subsection of COBRA and has nothing to do with continued coverage after termination. It has to do with refusing coverage and transferring patients. Another section of COBRA says is that after you leave your job, you can continue to pay the premium at the rate the company paid. No company pays $700/mo for their normal employees. The number is in the area of $200-$300/mo.
- Employers with medical coverage also offer short term and long term disability coverage. For about $10/mo you're covered in the amount of 70-80% of your salary for varying lengths of time depending on the specific program. You don't need to stop receiving a paycheck because you're sick.
- $2000/mo in expenses (not including a mortgage or rent)? I don't think so. My entire cost of living including rent, car payment, food, utilities, gas, auto insurance, etc. is about $2200/mo. Over half of that is rent. Someone who already owns their home (as posited in his story) will have living expenses in the sub $700 range. Add in his $400/mo meds and you're only at $1100.
- For a home owner you're looking at somewhere around $100,000 (minimum) in equity that can be tapped. More likely in the area of $250,000 and possibly as high as $500,000-$1,000,000 (in the north east/north west metro areas.)
He wanted to tell a story, and I'm fine with that. But don't think that his work of fiction is common. His story churned through $50,000 in 18 months. According to this the average cancer patient runs $36,000 in uncovered medical bills. The average seriously ill patient has $13,000. And these are the people who are declaring bankruptcy. Which is the point I was making. People who are prepared won't have this problem as they have been living prudently and have some savings set aside for a rainy day.
Using the corner cases to determine your health care policy is dumb as they will suck up 100% of your resources.
It is true that adaption happens at the individual level. Since the first word of your post is wrong, how about you actually argue a valid case. Additionally "ability to adapt" is not a genetic trait.
As far as my being selfish and evil, if you want to compare charitable acts I'm willing to meet somewhere and compare. We can make a video and put the results on youtube so that anytime you decide to get preachy everybody will be able to see that you speak more than you act.
That's an amazing statement. You do realize that the majority of millionaires in the US are self made, first generation? That they are rich because they've worked hard and lived frugally? Given that you have such a core fact wrong, I'm not sure how much to take away from the rest of your argument. Before you get too excited about class warfare, go read "The Millionaire Next Door" (the first chapter, and crapipedia's take) to get some facts about those you are painting as evil, criminal and amoral. You should also read "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Both books should be available in your local library.
First, you didn't answer my question. Before I'm willing to agree to paying for the health care for everyone, I want to know at what point we say "Sorry, it's literally going to take 10% of our GDP to provide you with another three days of life. We can't pay that." What are the numbers? And tell me what is the cap you're going to put on your quality of life so that this new kind of insurance you are advocating for can be in place. (The new kind of insurance that, unlike every other form of insurance, doesn't consider the risk factors involved.)
Second, someone without legs isn't broken down. I think they have a great ability to contribute. If you want to know about broken down, consider Terry Schiavo where the majority of her brain was gone. Or how about someone who is eighty years old and just diagnosed with a brain tumor and given three months to live under the best of circumstances? What about someone who has job, who could afford health insurance but chooses not to participate in the available program so that they can take an extra $60/mo home to buy five packs of cigarettes a week instead? Or someone who drinks a couple liters of hard liquor a day even though they've destroyed their liver and have to go for dialysis four times a week to stay alive while waiting to get to the front of the organ recipient list. What are you going to do about the twenty year old woman with six kids and no marketable skills and no indication that there is any intent on not having six more kids in the next five years?
No, I don't think we should be killing people who can have some functional life. I don't know what to do either. At a personal level I hate seeing people who are down, but I'm not crazy enough to think that giving them money will change their situation.
Adaption happens at the level of individuals. When groups develop that protect their less adapted members, the group as a whole becomes less well adapted. It has nothing to do with qualitative judgments and is entirely objective.
As to the rest of your comment, I'll just point out that the majority of charitable giving is done by those who think the government should stay out of it and those who give the least think the government should be involved. Anytime I hear someone telling me that the government needs to involved in solving social issues, what I know I'm really hearing is someone who wants the government to be involved in direct wealth redistribution.
EMTALA? No. COBRA. I pay whatever my company pays for the same coverage. We're talking in the area of $200/mo. I'm not even going to try to answer the rest of your story because it has no substantial basis in reality. Is it possible? Perhaps. But you made it up. I've never had a job with the health insurance terms as bad as you've stated.
No. Because no one is subject to random economic events. Yes, people unexpectedly lose their jobs, but anyone who is well prepared won't be subject to significant risk because of that. They will have savings set aside and they understand that they will have the (federally mandated) option to continue their current coverage for up to 18 months if they chose to pay.
I'm curious. Do you believe in evolution? I know it may sound heartless and uncivilized, but at what point is a person who is fundamentally broken down kicked off the public teat? Societies formed so that the participating parties would be able to do things that are in their best interest but that they could not do for themselves, not so that they could do things that they can do for themselves or are not in their best interest.
To use a real life example, does it make sense that the people in Nebraska should have to carry the insurance burden for the people who choose to live in hurricane alley? That's what Florida thinks should be the case.
I understand the need for encryption, but please explain why dedicated primitives are relevant?
Maybe you should grow a pair of testicles and ask your friends, family, and coworkers to stop buying you itunes gift cards.