The simple answer is that you run it like auto insurance in many states. You make people get it or make all employers provide it. In the former case you provide subsidies for poor people who couldn't normally afford it. The latter case is the path that Massachusetts chose.
You can also use state authority to provide for an independently funded institution that competes on the free market (with a little leverage to make the market more free than it currently is in certain areas) as outlined in this guy's plan.
No, actually, you're missing the point. TVs, cars, and stereos all have an equivalent to the power on/off button that computers have.
However, only computers have such a frequent need to be turned off and back on due to seizing up that the functionality was streamlined into the press of a single button.
Clearly it will have a hideous effect on all hard drives, just like the way all your bits fall out when you accidentally rotate your laptop 90 degrees against the polar magnetic flux.
All right, I'll calm down. You have a good point about the need for reproducibility and that I've only provided a single paper. This is actually a paper from 2004 repeating the results of the same researcher from 1997 -- which is admittedly not independent reproduction. I would honestly like to hear your thoughts on the paper, though.
Also, fair enough on the DNA damage and cancer thing. I'll withdraw my accusation. It doesn't matter whether I'm right or not; I have been posting like a complete jackass today, and I apologize for the attack.
wish people would stop advancing their semi-scientific theories as fact to show how smart they are. It just shows how a little education, possibly very little, can hide ignorance in almost all areas.
Alright, smart ass. I'd love to know exactly under what criteria the peer reviewed paper of a well-published scientist is "semi-scientific." If you had a methodology critique, maybe I'd consider you to have backed up your own arrogance, but you haven't. I'll give you a chance, though:
Here is the paper by Dr. Lai that I referred to which you "have strong doubts about." The paper is a follow up published in Environment Health Perspectives in 2004 to test the iron-mediated mechanism hypothesized in an original paper published in 1997 in Bioelectromagnetics. Go ahead. Eviscerate it. Show us what you've got. Put a peer reviewed paper in one hand and shaky skepticism in the other hand, and I can easily tell you which one I'll go with.
Also...
The one you cite, if true (which I have strong doubts about) by your own description reported observing something other than cancer.
If you don't understand the connection between DNA strand breakage and cancer, please stop commenting on what you perceive to be the lack of scientific understanding of others. You're clearly out of your depth.
I wish people would quit spouting this crap. It shows how a little education can hide ignorance in other areas. That only means that cell phone radiation cannot directly break the chemical bonds in DNA. Okay, good. You've eliminated one possible avenue of DNA damage. However, there are a few others to consider.
One is radio-catalyzed reactions. Radio waves do add energy to a system, and certain chemicals in the body might be receptive to certain radio frequencies and become energized. There is an entire field of study in chemistry of microwave-catalyzed reactions. You can actuall tune which reaction path will be taken in certain processes by flooding the reactants with radio energy.
For a proven example of non-ionizing energy causing DNA damage, look no further than alternating magnetic fields (such as from an electric razor). A study was done that showed that mice exposed to alternating magnetic fields had strongly increased strand breakage in their neurons. The experimenter theorized that this was because of an iron-mediated peroxide reaction in the cells. Giving the mice an anti-oxidant that mops up peroxide nullified the effects of the magnetic fields. No peroxide; no change in strand breakage. In this case, the magnetic field had a catalyzing effect in the cells.
Yes, cell phone radiation is non-ionizing. Big deal. The possibility still exists for alternative paths to disturbing cellular chemistry.
No, they're just steam-rollering ahead realizing that they have far, far more potential customers to reach than hobbyists (valuable hobbyists, but hobbyists nonetheless) to put out.
I'd personally like the FCC to put an axe in this idea, but it's never going to happen. Once they get enough of a userbase, it'll be impossible to shut them down politically. Ham radio will just die and the public simply won't know what they've lost because they don't use it themselves.
I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now.
Because they were afraid of gun control, secularism in schools and government, the growth of welfare and taxation, and (oddly enough) the government giving permission to other people to do things that they considered an intrustion in their way of life.
Now that much of that no longer a concern for them, and the government is focusing on cracking down on peace activists and on terrorists and foreigners in general, the government is out of their lives. That's all they care about. They've never cared about the government's involvement in other people's lives unless it was enabling other people to do things that offended them.
They don't care about civil rights they aren't really using, and none of the NSA excesses will make them blink. I've honestly had an argument with a friend who asked why we felt we had a right to try to take away his right to security. Nothing I could say would convince him that he's not being made safer by these actions and that the rights of people targetted by the government were important too.
The only reason they're moving against Bush now is because of the failure of FEMA in New Orleans, the potential for losing another war abroad, and other acts of incompetence that have placed the stink of failure on the President. Only fear of being associated with a loser makes them reject him now.
Of the three, I'm really partial to Jason's design. It captures all the elements of Slashdot, looks clean, has everything well separated, AND it works without error across the browsers I've tried. I'm rooting for it to win.
So, where do you put your odds up against a group of offices specifically armed and armored against gun resisters? The past 30 years of history's not on your side.
By the way, why is gun ownership the only right that you're interested in protecting with force? I ask since you seem to pooh-pooh the concerns of people interested in protecting other rights.
Yes, I'm proud of my country (even though that won't win me any friends on America-hating slashdot).
You fail to see what love for your country truly is.
You see, you have a "Mommy is never wrong, and people who say she is are bad!" kind of love for the country. America is not the Fatherland or the Motherland. We are citizens of a democracy and not slaves to some Confuscian hierarchical autocracy where we are meant to show our absolute obedience to those above us like a father.
Our nation is our creation -- our child. True patriots love their nation like it was their kid. Like our child, we can criticise the things that we love and still love them.
Would you say that a parent loved a child that they ignored the drug abuse and promiscuity of, or would you say that a parent loved a child that they disciplined and tried to make into a great person? Love for our nation means making sure that it doesn't go astray and become a monster that loots our purses for money to go get a hit off its addictions and beat up others.
Love for our nation means holding it to higher principles. It is not a lazy act of saluting the flag and trusting whoever has a title attached to their name like President or Officer. Love for our nation means treating its values as standards to always strive for. It's one thing to thump our chests and say that we're better than other nations because of the principles we say we believe in. It's another thing entirely to make sure that we actually live up to them and let others do the praising.
Your sort of false patriotism is the root of every fascist or communist state that was born from a democracy. As soon as respect for the country becomes more important than the country acting to earn respect, the end is in sight.
Seriously. I live deep in the South, and most of my friends are conservatives, though many are no longer supporters of Bush. 6 years of this Presidency has led to us basically tacitly refusing to speak about politics anymore, but they would not be phased by this for multiple reasons:
1) Some might deny that this is actually happening and chock it up as evidence of media bias. 2) Others will fall back on the canard of "if you're doing nothing wrong, then..." 3) Others will also believe that government is incompetent is every arena except policing and refuse to believe that individual employees will abuse things or that mistakes will be made. 4) Others will simply just ignore everything I say because "I'm just a Bush-hater."
Most will fall into #2 & #3. Only one guy I know would pull either #1 or #4. When Republicans govern, hardcore conservatives will refuse to believe that anything they do can ever be done wrong, especially when it concerns cracking down on crime and terrorism. Hell, just look at how many still blame everything that went wrong in Hurricane Katrina on local Democrats in Louisiana. If your neighbor has a "head in the sand" mentality, then no amount of reason will shake him until something is DONE to him by the government, which he is probably correct in assuming is extremely unlikely.
Clearly the odd image out is the one that shows global arms shipments because it isn't taking place in America unlike the immigration rally and E3 images. ... ... See, this is why I hate IQ tests.
You didn't -- directly. You quoted text singing the praises of fruit juices over corn syrup containing drinks, said "mod parent up," and then went on to sing the praises of fructose (as in contrast to HFCS-containing sodas).
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Fructose is bad because it's a named component in HFCS. They make HFCS because it's cheaper and sweeter than straight up corn syrup.
Fructose content is what distinguishes HFCS from regular corn syrup. It comes from converting dextrose in regular corn syrup with enzymes. I don't assume that fructose is bad because it's part of HFCS. I assume that HFCS is bad because of fructose.
In subjects with diabetes, fructose produces a lower postprandial [after eating] response when it replaces sucrose or starch in the diet; however, this benefit is tempered by concern that fructose may adversely effect plasma lipids. Therefore, the use of added fructose as a sweetening agent is not recommended; however, there is no reason to recommend that people with diabetes avoid naturally occurring fructose in fruits, vegetables, and other foods.
The specific plasma lipid levels they are talking about are triglycerides and LDL cholestorol levels. You can read more about this from a controlled study done in 1983. All of the dangers of consuming corn syrup come from the higher amount of fructose in it without the mediating effects of fiber in fruits. The non-water components of HFCS-55 used in soft drinks is about 55% fructose, 42% dextrose (d-glucose), and 4% more complex sugars. There is no other magical substance that makes it bad.
My post wasn't a non-sequitor. It was a direct rebuttal to your support for corn syrup being bad but fructose not being bad. Incidentally, most diabetic candies and cookies have been shifting to sugar alcohols like sorbitol, manitol, xylitol, etc. Fructose is out.
The last thing we need is to trade the current Mid-east manipulators of US economy for ones in South America!
I'm going to have to sharply disagree with you there. While energy independence is a goal that we must strive towards, I would rather be dependent (if we had to be) on Brazil than on Saudi Arabia. Brazil hasn't sponsored religious extremism and anti-Americanism worldwide. Brazil is a democracy and respects human rights unlike the Saudis. As a bonus, Brazil is also one of our strongest allies in South America. Plus, money pouring into Brazil might go toward taxes there to preserve the rainforests, and shifting from oil to ethanol would help reduce our impact on global warming. I'm just not seeing much in the way of reasons to say that being dependent on Brazil is the "last thing we need" especially in comparison to our current situation.
The concentration on ethanol production only from corn is due to powerful lobbying and this attitude should be curtailed rather than canceling tariffs!
This attitude is the result of lobbying. Without subsidies to corn production, tariffs on sugar imports, and tariffs on ethanol, we wouldn't have the assumption that corn will be used.
Actually, fructose is the problem with corn syrup, specifically high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
You see fructose doesn't raise your glucose levels because your body can use it without the need for insulin. Unfortunately, this means your liver can process it into triglycerides really quickly and your fat cells can suck it up rapidly too; this is why corn syrup is linked to obesity.
I wouldn't stress too much about fruit juice in the diet, though. You'd be better off drinking water and eating fruit, but it's still a lot better for you than carbonated beverages.
As you point out by referencing an earlier thread, some people seriously assert propositions like those in your post.
I did? Um, check the nicks again.
No offense, but responding to a post poking fun at your reading comprehension skills with a post that gets who is who wrong is either tragically funny or a beautiful example of Socratic irony. <g>
I forgot how the early DQ games related since I've only played 1, 7, and 8. I didn't think that BoF 1-3 were related, but I haven't gotten all the way through 2 & 3 yet. The second game certainly feels very different in tone. I wasn't aware the Atelier games were connected -- I thought they were seperate.
I also just plain forgot.hack, Xenosaga, and Suikoden which is a shame considering that I own them all. The Seiken Densetsu games all reuse themes, but I'm pretty sure they're not part of the same continuity given how different the world is layed out in each game.
Good stuff. We also both forgot about Phantasy Star, Lufia, and Growlancer for series where sequels connect and the Megami Tensei (aka Persona) series for games where they don't (for the most part).
Not to troll, but are there any other game "series" where every (well, almost every) installment features a completely new plot and new characters?
The Dragon Quest series. The Tales series. The Grandia series. The SaGa series. The Wild Arms series. The Shining Force series. The Atelier series. The Breath of Fire series (even if there's always a Nina).
In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of console RPG series that has had more than 2 games where the games actually are sequels: The Arc the Lad, Lunar, and Ys series are the only I can think of.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple answer is that you run it like auto insurance in many states. You make people get it or make all employers provide it. In the former case you provide subsidies for poor people who couldn't normally afford it. The latter case is the path that Massachusetts chose.
You can also use state authority to provide for an independently funded institution that competes on the free market (with a little leverage to make the market more free than it currently is in certain areas) as outlined in this guy's plan.
No, actually, you're missing the point. TVs, cars, and stereos all have an equivalent to the power on/off button that computers have.
However, only computers have such a frequent need to be turned off and back on due to seizing up that the functionality was streamlined into the press of a single button.
This debate will never be over... until someone makes a microkernel unix system that's more than just a proof of concept.
There's this one little company that sells an OS based on the Mach microkernel. They may be a little obscure, but maybe you've heard of them?
Personally, I think it's because we all secretly admire how Snake manages to be cool in spite of a mullet and a little math teacher mustache.
Then a hot chick tackles you and starts ripping off your clothes...and the authorities kick in your door...
Some parents might consider this a feature and not a bug.
Clearly it will have a hideous effect on all hard drives, just like the way all your bits fall out when you accidentally rotate your laptop 90 degrees against the polar magnetic flux.
All right, I'll calm down. You have a good point about the need for reproducibility and that I've only provided a single paper. This is actually a paper from 2004 repeating the results of the same researcher from 1997 -- which is admittedly not independent reproduction. I would honestly like to hear your thoughts on the paper, though.
Also, fair enough on the DNA damage and cancer thing. I'll withdraw my accusation. It doesn't matter whether I'm right or not; I have been posting like a complete jackass today, and I apologize for the attack.
wish people would stop advancing their semi-scientific theories as fact to show how smart they are. It just shows how a little education, possibly very little, can hide ignorance in almost all areas.
Alright, smart ass. I'd love to know exactly under what criteria the peer reviewed paper of a well-published scientist is "semi-scientific." If you had a methodology critique, maybe I'd consider you to have backed up your own arrogance, but you haven't. I'll give you a chance, though:
Here is the paper by Dr. Lai that I referred to which you "have strong doubts about." The paper is a follow up published in Environment Health Perspectives in 2004 to test the iron-mediated mechanism hypothesized in an original paper published in 1997 in Bioelectromagnetics. Go ahead. Eviscerate it. Show us what you've got. Put a peer reviewed paper in one hand and shaky skepticism in the other hand, and I can easily tell you which one I'll go with.
Also...
The one you cite, if true (which I have strong doubts about) by your own description reported observing something other than cancer.
If you don't understand the connection between DNA strand breakage and cancer, please stop commenting on what you perceive to be the lack of scientific understanding of others. You're clearly out of your depth.
I wish people would quit spouting this crap. It shows how a little education can hide ignorance in other areas. That only means that cell phone radiation cannot directly break the chemical bonds in DNA. Okay, good. You've eliminated one possible avenue of DNA damage. However, there are a few others to consider.
One is radio-catalyzed reactions. Radio waves do add energy to a system, and certain chemicals in the body might be receptive to certain radio frequencies and become energized. There is an entire field of study in chemistry of microwave-catalyzed reactions. You can actuall tune which reaction path will be taken in certain processes by flooding the reactants with radio energy.
For a proven example of non-ionizing energy causing DNA damage, look no further than alternating magnetic fields (such as from an electric razor). A study was done that showed that mice exposed to alternating magnetic fields had strongly increased strand breakage in their neurons. The experimenter theorized that this was because of an iron-mediated peroxide reaction in the cells. Giving the mice an anti-oxidant that mops up peroxide nullified the effects of the magnetic fields. No peroxide; no change in strand breakage. In this case, the magnetic field had a catalyzing effect in the cells.
Yes, cell phone radiation is non-ionizing. Big deal. The possibility still exists for alternative paths to disturbing cellular chemistry.
Of the 7 brain tumors, 2 are malignant. Indicating that possibly different kinds of cancer are occuring.
I wouldn't go that far. What kind of cancer causing agent damages the exact same genes in all victims, resulting in the exact same type of tumor?
No, they're just steam-rollering ahead realizing that they have far, far more potential customers to reach than hobbyists (valuable hobbyists, but hobbyists nonetheless) to put out.
I'd personally like the FCC to put an axe in this idea, but it's never going to happen. Once they get enough of a userbase, it'll be impossible to shut them down politically. Ham radio will just die and the public simply won't know what they've lost because they don't use it themselves.
I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now.
Because they were afraid of gun control, secularism in schools and government, the growth of welfare and taxation, and (oddly enough) the government giving permission to other people to do things that they considered an intrustion in their way of life.
Now that much of that no longer a concern for them, and the government is focusing on cracking down on peace activists and on terrorists and foreigners in general, the government is out of their lives. That's all they care about. They've never cared about the government's involvement in other people's lives unless it was enabling other people to do things that offended them.
They don't care about civil rights they aren't really using, and none of the NSA excesses will make them blink. I've honestly had an argument with a friend who asked why we felt we had a right to try to take away his right to security. Nothing I could say would convince him that he's not being made safer by these actions and that the rights of people targetted by the government were important too.
The only reason they're moving against Bush now is because of the failure of FEMA in New Orleans, the potential for losing another war abroad, and other acts of incompetence that have placed the stink of failure on the President. Only fear of being associated with a loser makes them reject him now.
Of the three, I'm really partial to Jason's design. It captures all the elements of Slashdot, looks clean, has everything well separated, AND it works without error across the browsers I've tried. I'm rooting for it to win.
Me too.
When the government comes to take them away.
So, where do you put your odds up against a group of offices specifically armed and armored against gun resisters? The past 30 years of history's not on your side.
By the way, why is gun ownership the only right that you're interested in protecting with force? I ask since you seem to pooh-pooh the concerns of people interested in protecting other rights.
Yes, I'm proud of my country (even though that won't win me any friends on America-hating slashdot).
You fail to see what love for your country truly is.
You see, you have a "Mommy is never wrong, and people who say she is are bad!" kind of love for the country. America is not the Fatherland or the Motherland. We are citizens of a democracy and not slaves to some Confuscian hierarchical autocracy where we are meant to show our absolute obedience to those above us like a father.
Our nation is our creation -- our child. True patriots love their nation like it was their kid. Like our child, we can criticise the things that we love and still love them.
Would you say that a parent loved a child that they ignored the drug abuse and promiscuity of, or would you say that a parent loved a child that they disciplined and tried to make into a great person? Love for our nation means making sure that it doesn't go astray and become a monster that loots our purses for money to go get a hit off its addictions and beat up others.
Love for our nation means holding it to higher principles. It is not a lazy act of saluting the flag and trusting whoever has a title attached to their name like President or Officer. Love for our nation means treating its values as standards to always strive for. It's one thing to thump our chests and say that we're better than other nations because of the principles we say we believe in. It's another thing entirely to make sure that we actually live up to them and let others do the praising.
Your sort of false patriotism is the root of every fascist or communist state that was born from a democracy. As soon as respect for the country becomes more important than the country acting to earn respect, the end is in sight.
Seriously. I live deep in the South, and most of my friends are conservatives, though many are no longer supporters of Bush. 6 years of this Presidency has led to us basically tacitly refusing to speak about politics anymore, but they would not be phased by this for multiple reasons:
1) Some might deny that this is actually happening and chock it up as evidence of media bias.
2) Others will fall back on the canard of "if you're doing nothing wrong, then..."
3) Others will also believe that government is incompetent is every arena except policing and refuse to believe that individual employees will abuse things or that mistakes will be made.
4) Others will simply just ignore everything I say because "I'm just a Bush-hater."
Most will fall into #2 & #3. Only one guy I know would pull either #1 or #4. When Republicans govern, hardcore conservatives will refuse to believe that anything they do can ever be done wrong, especially when it concerns cracking down on crime and terrorism. Hell, just look at how many still blame everything that went wrong in Hurricane Katrina on local Democrats in Louisiana. If your neighbor has a "head in the sand" mentality, then no amount of reason will shake him until something is DONE to him by the government, which he is probably correct in assuming is extremely unlikely.
Clearly the odd image out is the one that shows global arms shipments because it isn't taking place in America unlike the immigration rally and E3 images.
...
...
See, this is why I hate IQ tests.
You didn't -- directly. You quoted text singing the praises of fruit juices over corn syrup containing drinks, said "mod parent up," and then went on to sing the praises of fructose (as in contrast to HFCS-containing sodas).
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Fructose is bad because it's a named component in HFCS. They make HFCS because it's cheaper and sweeter than straight up corn syrup.
Fructose content is what distinguishes HFCS from regular corn syrup. It comes from converting dextrose in regular corn syrup with enzymes. I don't assume that fructose is bad because it's part of HFCS. I assume that HFCS is bad because of fructose.
The American Diabetics Association would agree with me now too. They have said since 2002 that fructose should be avoided as an added sweetener:
The specific plasma lipid levels they are talking about are triglycerides and LDL cholestorol levels. You can read more about this from a controlled study done in 1983. All of the dangers of consuming corn syrup come from the higher amount of fructose in it without the mediating effects of fiber in fruits. The non-water components of HFCS-55 used in soft drinks is about 55% fructose, 42% dextrose (d-glucose), and 4% more complex sugars. There is no other magical substance that makes it bad.
My post wasn't a non-sequitor. It was a direct rebuttal to your support for corn syrup being bad but fructose not being bad. Incidentally, most diabetic candies and cookies have been shifting to sugar alcohols like sorbitol, manitol, xylitol, etc. Fructose is out.
The last thing we need is to trade the current Mid-east manipulators of US economy for ones in South America!
I'm going to have to sharply disagree with you there. While energy independence is a goal that we must strive towards, I would rather be dependent (if we had to be) on Brazil than on Saudi Arabia. Brazil hasn't sponsored religious extremism and anti-Americanism worldwide. Brazil is a democracy and respects human rights unlike the Saudis. As a bonus, Brazil is also one of our strongest allies in South America. Plus, money pouring into Brazil might go toward taxes there to preserve the rainforests, and shifting from oil to ethanol would help reduce our impact on global warming. I'm just not seeing much in the way of reasons to say that being dependent on Brazil is the "last thing we need" especially in comparison to our current situation.
The concentration on ethanol production only from corn is due to powerful lobbying and this attitude should be curtailed rather than canceling tariffs!
This attitude is the result of lobbying. Without subsidies to corn production, tariffs on sugar imports, and tariffs on ethanol, we wouldn't have the assumption that corn will be used.
Actually, fructose is the problem with corn syrup, specifically high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
You see fructose doesn't raise your glucose levels because your body can use it without the need for insulin. Unfortunately, this means your liver can process it into triglycerides really quickly and your fat cells can suck it up rapidly too; this is why corn syrup is linked to obesity.
I wouldn't stress too much about fruit juice in the diet, though. You'd be better off drinking water and eating fruit, but it's still a lot better for you than carbonated beverages.
Where exactly do you find soy milk that isn't loaded in sugar?
Seriously. Check the label sometime.
As you point out by referencing an earlier thread, some people seriously assert propositions like those in your post.
I did? Um, check the nicks again.
No offense, but responding to a post poking fun at your reading comprehension skills with a post that gets who is who wrong is either tragically funny or a beautiful example of Socratic irony. <g>
I forgot how the early DQ games related since I've only played 1, 7, and 8. I didn't think that BoF 1-3 were related, but I haven't gotten all the way through 2 & 3 yet. The second game certainly feels very different in tone. I wasn't aware the Atelier games were connected -- I thought they were seperate.
.hack, Xenosaga, and Suikoden which is a shame considering that I own them all. The Seiken Densetsu games all reuse themes, but I'm pretty sure they're not part of the same continuity given how different the world is layed out in each game.
I also just plain forgot
Good stuff. We also both forgot about Phantasy Star, Lufia, and Growlancer for series where sequels connect and the Megami Tensei (aka Persona) series for games where they don't (for the most part).
Why, do you feel like the game would be more valuable to you and more fun if they didn't make anymore games after it?
Besides, if you're still buying Final Fantasy games by the 13th game, and you feel bad about it, then you've got some kind of weird self-abuse issues.
Not to troll, but are there any other game "series" where every (well, almost every) installment features a completely new plot and new characters?
The Dragon Quest series.
The Tales series.
The Grandia series.
The SaGa series.
The Wild Arms series.
The Shining Force series.
The Atelier series.
The Breath of Fire series (even if there's always a Nina).
In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of console RPG series that has had more than 2 games where the games actually are sequels: The Arc the Lad, Lunar, and Ys series are the only I can think of.