"would you rather have a private corporation run entirely for profit decide"
I have nothing against "profit" per se. If you do, you're not thinking hard enough about your own life and what it would be like without the profit motive of people around you.
Remember too, that these private corporations don't get to "decide" at their whims. There is an actual contract, actual consideration changing hands, and actual case law to help settle differences. With a government program, rules barely exist, and the policies change as your betters see fit.
Cute but wrong. Normal insurance policies cannot systematically force one group of clients to subsidize another, because the former would simply leave and get their insurance at a lower rate elsewhere.
"if you have a shift in demographics where fewer young people pays for the healthcare of a large aging population"... or if the tax base is just not large enough for the young folks to continue subsidizing health care for the old/sick. Remember, that's the only way government "insurance" works - by forcing one group to subsidize another.
In the US, the federal medicare* programs are for the poor and old, who by nature require more elaborate services than the normal population. In the UK, 100,000 old per year are put on the "liverpool care pathway" (death panel), which saves even more.
Depends how fast your station wagon is, how bad the traffic is, whether some manhole decides to explode in front of you. And once your tapes have made the voyage, you have to pay for the latency of each and every seek.
More like "if X is defined as Z, then Z is consistent with X."
Anyway, better definition of fairness? Roughly speaking, being subject to the same rules, having roughly same chance. Measuring that is probably trickier than measuring equality-of-outcome, but such is life.
"it's premise is flawed in multiple ways, not the least of which being that, if anything, the study only provides evidence for the argument that blacks are smarter than whites and not the other way around."
Wait, are you saying that the study is flawed because it implies blacks are smarter than whites, and this contradicts (your view of) reality? Who's the racist one again?
But but but, I've been told by my superiors that intelligence is a social construct devised by the white man to keep down the proletariat, and has no biological basis whatsoever.
While reading the article (I assume you mean Derbyshire's), I must have missed the self-refutation you are referring to. The other linked articles are full of rage but a bit lacking in the refutation department. Humor me with a link or two please.
Yes, please. The list is self-admittedly filled with generalizations! The question is whether the generalizations are reasonable, and to what extent it's legitimate to act upon them (in the absence of other information).
"your misquoting makes it sound like they're making far more grandiose claims than they actually are."
Yes, because their own words cunningly implied that they were intent on completely turning over of the order of the soul. Or you think I think so.
Or maybe, a mere data visualization method (which by the way is rather precedented) is unlikely to revolutionalize anything, *including* "educational uses and the teaching of history". But I guess this is press-releasese, not plain language; we are supposed to dream.
"possibly revolutionary impact" =/= "The hope is that it will revolutionize teaching, study and research of the past," which is what they actually wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
"would you rather have a private corporation run entirely for profit decide"
I have nothing against "profit" per se. If you do, you're not thinking hard enough about your own life and what it would be like without the profit motive of people around you.
Remember too, that these private corporations don't get to "decide" at their whims. There is an actual contract, actual consideration changing hands, and actual case law to help settle differences. With a government program, rules barely exist, and the policies change as your betters see fit.
"FTFY".
Cute but wrong. Normal insurance policies cannot systematically force one group of clients to subsidize another, because the former would simply leave and get their insurance at a lower rate elsewhere.
"if you have a shift in demographics where fewer young people pays for the healthcare of a large aging population" ... or if the tax base is just not large enough for the young folks to continue subsidizing health care for the old/sick. Remember, that's the only way government "insurance" works - by forcing one group to subsidize another.
In the US, the federal medicare* programs are for the poor and old, who by nature require more elaborate services than the normal population. In the UK, 100,000 old per year are put on the "liverpool care pathway" (death panel), which saves even more.
Depends how fast your station wagon is, how bad the traffic is, whether some manhole decides to explode in front of you. And once your tapes have made the voyage, you have to pay for the latency of each and every seek.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon ..."
And never underestimate the latency either.
"public safety purposes" -- if public safety were reliant on wifi, someone surely screwed up.
No true scientist can be a "converted skeptic", i.e., a "believer".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp7f8IxJNU
More like "if X is defined as Z, then Z is consistent with X."
Anyway, better definition of fairness? Roughly speaking, being subject to the same rules, having roughly same chance. Measuring that is probably trickier than measuring equality-of-outcome, but such is life.
Yes, "if". And if not, then not. Thus the circularity.
"that makes modern society considerably less fair"
Only in a circular-argument way.
A cloud right on the earth (surface) is called "fog".
Those of us in the carbon offset industry will smile for the few more years the scheme will last.
Sounds like a relative of the ICFP 2008 contest: http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/newsletter/353
You're right, to the extent that it wasn't my superiors who said that.
"it's premise is flawed in multiple ways, not the least of which being that, if anything, the study only provides evidence for the argument that blacks are smarter than whites and not the other way around."
Wait, are you saying that the study is flawed because it implies blacks are smarter than whites, and this contradicts (your view of) reality?
Who's the racist one again?
"the gene is more prevalent in blacks than whites"
Could you spell out your perceived contradiction?
But but but, I've been told by my superiors that intelligence is a social construct devised by the white man to keep down the proletariat, and has no biological basis whatsoever.
While reading the article (I assume you mean Derbyshire's), I must have missed the self-refutation you are referring to. The other linked articles are full of rage but a bit lacking in the refutation department. Humor me with a link or two please.
Yes, please. The list is self-admittedly filled with generalizations! The question is whether the generalizations are reasonable, and to what extent it's legitimate to act upon them (in the absence of other information).
"Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves."
Be that as it may. It would be worthwhile to provide an item-by-item refutation to the article, than simply scream "racism" and leave it at that.
"your misquoting makes it sound like they're making far more grandiose claims than they actually are."
Yes, because their own words cunningly implied that they were intent on completely turning over of the order of the soul. Or you think I think so.
Or maybe, a mere data visualization method (which by the way is rather precedented) is unlikely to revolutionalize anything, *including* "educational uses and the teaching of history". But I guess this is press-releasese, not plain language; we are supposed to dream.
"possibly revolutionary impact" =/= "The hope is that it will revolutionize teaching, study and research of the past," which is what they actually wrote.
Both phrases appear in TFA.
Is there no sense of proportion in academic press release land?