The trouble is that in the United States, it is politically acceptable to spend $50 billion on drones and missiles, but not politically acceptable to spend $1 billion on scientific research. It's also easier in the US to find money for schools in Afghanistan than it is to find money for schools in Alabama.
I'm still not really quite sure where that comes from, but it's very very true.
1. Dennis Kucinich's Politifact record: He's about 17% wrong, as he is in this case. That's a considerably better record than many. 2. He's lost his seat. You don't have to deal with him past January. 3. For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane. 4. He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs. 5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives. 6. He's turned his political career into a small fortune and marriage to a really hot redhead, so his goals are reasonable enough.
There were some pluses to living in the 1950's, but there were almost all related to the fact that men ages 20-50 were in short supply after WWII. For instance, white men could get better (in terms of wages, benefits, and hours) jobs than are available now and could marry better (because they were so outnumbered by women who wanted to get married).
That difference is actually key to the modern American social conservative narrative, which sells the (completely bogus) idea that if we had the same social structure white people had in the 1950's, we'd have the economic success that white families enjoyed in the 1950's. And of course, if you weren't white, it's a completely different story.
That was after another conversation that went like this:
Pentagon: What happen? CIA: Somebody shot down us the drone. We get signal. Pentagon: Main screen turn on. It's you! Ahmadinajad: How are you gentlemen? All your tech are belong to us! You are on the way to destruction. Pentagon: What you say? Ahmadinajad: You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha ha! Pentagon: Take off every MiG. We know what you're doing. Move MiG. For great justice!
Also, to invalidate your first point, the article starts with the premise that everyone is coming away $200,000 in debt unless you drop out or skip college so, no, apparently not everyone gets Yale at reduced price.
How about looking at the actual numbers: According to the College Board, Yale list price is $56K per year, but low-income students pay $6K, not $56K, middle class students pay $7-10K, and fairly wealthy students pay $30K. Harvard isn't much different: about $1300 for low-income students, $4-12K for middle class students, and $32K for the wealthier crowd. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc are all on roughly the same scale as well. So that premise is in fact false for the big-name schools. The actual numbers are closer to $24K in loans for poor students, $40K for middle class students, and even fairly wealthy kids would take on closer to $120K.
Now, that requires being a student that big name schools really want to get. But if you're a poor kid with a 4.0 GPA and a a 2350 SAT score, it's at least worth checking to see if you could get close to a free ride at a big-name school because they'll have grants and scholarships that more local colleges won't have. You're right it's completely unfair, but that doesn't make the argument untrue.
Re:If a Medical Doctor was involved in the collect
on
Who Owns Your Health Data?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It already is a political issue, the moment the idiots wanted politics involved in HealthCare.
If they're idiots, why is it that health care with lots of government involvement has better patient outcomes for lower costs?
This is the full problem of centralizing decision making away from the people.
The problem with patients making all the key decisions is that patients as a rule (a) don't have a clue what they're deciding, (b) have no idea what it costs, (c) would as a rule pay any price to not die, and (d) don't always have cash on hand when they would need to pay the price to not die. Those are the basic reasons why free markets don't produce optimal outcomes for health care.
The big-name schools do provide a few benefits: 1. They have more financial aid money available, so there's a decent chance that if you get into, say, Yale, you won't pay even close to the full price. They may even have special programs specifically to help people like you if you're from a historically disadvantaged background (e.g. a scholarship fund set up 50 years ago dedicated to educating people called at the time "Negros").
2. The future movers and shakers are your classmates. If you want friends in high places for cozy patronage jobs, that will help.
3. Everyone around you will think you're brilliant with no other proof whatsoever. For example, my sister went to an Ivy League school, and many of her classmates were hired right out of school to work in "consulting", which is basically a job of traveling around the US giving Powerpoint presentations on topics they knew little to nothing about. They got the jobs specifically due to their Ivy League education.
Yes there is: Specifically, his theories fail to account for things that are very fast (significant fractions of c), very very massive, or very small. They're absolutely fantastic for anything that doesn't fall into those categories. Einstein's theories also explained the behavior of things that were very fast, large, or (in some cases) small, so they're better theories. That's not to say that Newton's theories aren't extremely useful, because they correctly describe the behavior of everyday objects. But they were also partially wrong.
do math even if they think algebra is the work of evil mooslims.
Algebra was in fact largely invented by Muslim scholars, particularly Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, which is why its name is derived from Arabic (as is "algorithm"). Smart guys from the Muslim world were key to maintaining knowledge and learning in the world while Christian Europeans were busy killing each other and dying of the plague from about 600 CE to 1400 CE.
Many atheists do have a specific belief that is worth mentioning, namely that the universe is completely self-contained. That is to say, there's no possibility of anything outside the observable universe affecting the goings-on of the observable universe. And what logically follows from that is that it is theoretically possible for scientific inquiry to completely explain the entire goings-on of the observable universe. All this is quite consistent with the idea that there is no god.
However, that viewpoint is a belief system, because it's not currently demonstrably wrong nor demonstrably right. By all appearances, it's a lot more correct than "The Earth was created by God 6000 years ago," but there is no current proof. If we get a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" that fully explained all the goings-on in the universe with information available to us in the universe, then atheism becomes the pure unvarnished truth, but until then a lot of atheists are accepting on faith that such a theory exists.
The "atheist agenda" tends to be encouraging and funding scientific research that would get us closer to a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Some theists are terrified of this because they think that it will convince people that there is no god and thus cause them to be damned to Hell.
There are 2 reasons I don't: 1. It's likely to be a decade or two before the real mess gets to me, for a bunch of reasons (like not living in the Maldives). 2. There's an off-chance that I'll be one of the people who manages to adapt and survive.
Even there, only partially. For instance, it's perfectly legal for a service member to tell another citizen that they plan to vote a particular way in an election and their reasons for doing so, or to say that they are following a particular religion (or not), etc.
Certainly anyone who goes beyond the "dissect a frog" and "identify the parts of a cell" stuff of a typical high school biology course should learn about evolution, but most students don't get any further than that.
That argument still doesn't make sense, and I say that as somebody who took your basic high school biology.
For example, take 1 cell part, the nucleus. Well, to explain a nucleus, you pretty much have to explain DNA. To explain what DNA is or why we have it, you have to go into genetics. As soon as you get into genetics, you have to look at variation, sexual reproduction, and errors. And then it's a very short leap towards describing effective versus really lousy variations, and from there to natural selection. And bingo, you have Darwin's theory of evolution.
Or you can dissect a frog. Well, why is it that a frog has some of the same internal organs that humans do?
Or you can look at basic human anatomy. Try to explain why (some) humans have an appendix, wisdom teeth, or the ability to wiggle their ears without looking at the evolutionary relationships between humans and other primates.
Sure it is. In fact, it's almost always wrong. But it's wrong in a useful way, and it's steadily getting less wrong. For instance, Albert Einstein came along and proved that Isaac Newton was partially wrong. Later physicists like Stephen Hawking came along and proved that Einstein was partially wrong. But Einstein was significantly closer to right than Newton was.
As Isaac Asimov put it: "When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Hitler was no kind of neo-Pagan. Some of the other Nazis were interested in restoring Norse paganism, but available evidence suggests Hitler had nothing but contempt for those ideas and saw himself as a Christian. He also had some interest in occult practices, but of a variety that were firmly Christian.
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution.... The theory of evolution is just not that important.
I'll put it this way: Trying to do modern biology without learning evolution is like trying to do modern chemistry without learning how the periodic table works.
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble is that in the United States, it is politically acceptable to spend $50 billion on drones and missiles, but not politically acceptable to spend $1 billion on scientific research. It's also easier in the US to find money for schools in Afghanistan than it is to find money for schools in Alabama.
I'm still not really quite sure where that comes from, but it's very very true.
Chuck Norris doesn't have cold shivers
Sure he does. Remember the earthquake last year in Japan?
1. Dennis Kucinich's Politifact record: He's about 17% wrong, as he is in this case. That's a considerably better record than many.
2. He's lost his seat. You don't have to deal with him past January.
3. For what it's worth, I've met the man, and I've seen no signs that he was 100% insane. And I've met people that were pretty insane.
4. He's been frequently right when most of Congress was wrong. For instance, he firmly believed that Iraq had no WMDs.
5. Ron Paul doesn't think he's nuts, and worked with him regularly on bipartisan initiatives.
6. He's turned his political career into a small fortune and marriage to a really hot redhead, so his goals are reasonable enough.
There were some pluses to living in the 1950's, but there were almost all related to the fact that men ages 20-50 were in short supply after WWII. For instance, white men could get better (in terms of wages, benefits, and hours) jobs than are available now and could marry better (because they were so outnumbered by women who wanted to get married).
That difference is actually key to the modern American social conservative narrative, which sells the (completely bogus) idea that if we had the same social structure white people had in the 1950's, we'd have the economic success that white families enjoyed in the 1950's. And of course, if you weren't white, it's a completely different story.
That was after another conversation that went like this:
Pentagon: What happen?
CIA: Somebody shot down us the drone. We get signal.
Pentagon: Main screen turn on. It's you!
Ahmadinajad: How are you gentlemen? All your tech are belong to us! You are on the way to destruction.
Pentagon: What you say?
Ahmadinajad: You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha ha!
Pentagon: Take off every MiG. We know what you're doing. Move MiG. For great justice!
Relevant is the menu for the Roadkill Cafe: You kill 'em, we grill 'em!
Because it was captured by a mad scientist, turned into a half-robot, and forced to watch videos that ruined childhood memories?
(curse you, Matt Senreich and Seth Green)
BMO, I want you to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W ...
Who looks back on Bush as enlightened?
Mitt Romney?
Also, to invalidate your first point, the article starts with the premise that everyone is coming away $200,000 in debt unless you drop out or skip college so, no, apparently not everyone gets Yale at reduced price.
How about looking at the actual numbers:
According to the College Board, Yale list price is $56K per year, but low-income students pay $6K, not $56K, middle class students pay $7-10K, and fairly wealthy students pay $30K. Harvard isn't much different: about $1300 for low-income students, $4-12K for middle class students, and $32K for the wealthier crowd. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, etc are all on roughly the same scale as well. So that premise is in fact false for the big-name schools. The actual numbers are closer to $24K in loans for poor students, $40K for middle class students, and even fairly wealthy kids would take on closer to $120K.
Now, that requires being a student that big name schools really want to get. But if you're a poor kid with a 4.0 GPA and a a 2350 SAT score, it's at least worth checking to see if you could get close to a free ride at a big-name school because they'll have grants and scholarships that more local colleges won't have. You're right it's completely unfair, but that doesn't make the argument untrue.
It already is a political issue, the moment the idiots wanted politics involved in HealthCare.
If they're idiots, why is it that health care with lots of government involvement has better patient outcomes for lower costs?
This is the full problem of centralizing decision making away from the people.
The problem with patients making all the key decisions is that patients as a rule (a) don't have a clue what they're deciding, (b) have no idea what it costs, (c) would as a rule pay any price to not die, and (d) don't always have cash on hand when they would need to pay the price to not die. Those are the basic reasons why free markets don't produce optimal outcomes for health care.
The big-name schools do provide a few benefits:
1. They have more financial aid money available, so there's a decent chance that if you get into, say, Yale, you won't pay even close to the full price. They may even have special programs specifically to help people like you if you're from a historically disadvantaged background (e.g. a scholarship fund set up 50 years ago dedicated to educating people called at the time "Negros").
2. The future movers and shakers are your classmates. If you want friends in high places for cozy patronage jobs, that will help.
3. Everyone around you will think you're brilliant with no other proof whatsoever. For example, my sister went to an Ivy League school, and many of her classmates were hired right out of school to work in "consulting", which is basically a job of traveling around the US giving Powerpoint presentations on topics they knew little to nothing about. They got the jobs specifically due to their Ivy League education.
forumula racing
What's a forumula? Is this event a race to get a First Post or something?
There is nothing wrong with Newtons theories.
Yes there is: Specifically, his theories fail to account for things that are very fast (significant fractions of c), very very massive, or very small. They're absolutely fantastic for anything that doesn't fall into those categories. Einstein's theories also explained the behavior of things that were very fast, large, or (in some cases) small, so they're better theories. That's not to say that Newton's theories aren't extremely useful, because they correctly describe the behavior of everyday objects. But they were also partially wrong.
That's not a galaxy, that's yo momma!
do math even if they think algebra is the work of evil mooslims.
Algebra was in fact largely invented by Muslim scholars, particularly Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, which is why its name is derived from Arabic (as is "algorithm"). Smart guys from the Muslim world were key to maintaining knowledge and learning in the world while Christian Europeans were busy killing each other and dying of the plague from about 600 CE to 1400 CE.
Many atheists do have a specific belief that is worth mentioning, namely that the universe is completely self-contained. That is to say, there's no possibility of anything outside the observable universe affecting the goings-on of the observable universe. And what logically follows from that is that it is theoretically possible for scientific inquiry to completely explain the entire goings-on of the observable universe. All this is quite consistent with the idea that there is no god.
However, that viewpoint is a belief system, because it's not currently demonstrably wrong nor demonstrably right. By all appearances, it's a lot more correct than "The Earth was created by God 6000 years ago," but there is no current proof. If we get a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" that fully explained all the goings-on in the universe with information available to us in the universe, then atheism becomes the pure unvarnished truth, but until then a lot of atheists are accepting on faith that such a theory exists.
The "atheist agenda" tends to be encouraging and funding scientific research that would get us closer to a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Some theists are terrified of this because they think that it will convince people that there is no god and thus cause them to be damned to Hell.
There are 2 reasons I don't:
1. It's likely to be a decade or two before the real mess gets to me, for a bunch of reasons (like not living in the Maldives).
2. There's an off-chance that I'll be one of the people who manages to adapt and survive.
Most notably the right to free speech.
Even there, only partially. For instance, it's perfectly legal for a service member to tell another citizen that they plan to vote a particular way in an election and their reasons for doing so, or to say that they are following a particular religion (or not), etc.
Certainly anyone who goes beyond the "dissect a frog" and "identify the parts of a cell" stuff of a typical high school biology course should learn about evolution, but most students don't get any further than that.
That argument still doesn't make sense, and I say that as somebody who took your basic high school biology.
For example, take 1 cell part, the nucleus. Well, to explain a nucleus, you pretty much have to explain DNA. To explain what DNA is or why we have it, you have to go into genetics. As soon as you get into genetics, you have to look at variation, sexual reproduction, and errors. And then it's a very short leap towards describing effective versus really lousy variations, and from there to natural selection. And bingo, you have Darwin's theory of evolution.
Or you can dissect a frog. Well, why is it that a frog has some of the same internal organs that humans do?
Or you can look at basic human anatomy. Try to explain why (some) humans have an appendix, wisdom teeth, or the ability to wiggle their ears without looking at the evolutionary relationships between humans and other primates.
Perhaps the more relevant question to you is why did God create weed.
Because God loves humans and wants them to be happy?
Science is never wrong.
Sure it is. In fact, it's almost always wrong. But it's wrong in a useful way, and it's steadily getting less wrong. For instance, Albert Einstein came along and proved that Isaac Newton was partially wrong. Later physicists like Stephen Hawking came along and proved that Einstein was partially wrong. But Einstein was significantly closer to right than Newton was.
As Isaac Asimov put it:
"When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Hitler was no kind of neo-Pagan. Some of the other Nazis were interested in restoring Norse paganism, but available evidence suggests Hitler had nothing but contempt for those ideas and saw himself as a Christian. He also had some interest in occult practices, but of a variety that were firmly Christian.
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution. ... The theory of evolution is just not that important.
I'll put it this way: Trying to do modern biology without learning evolution is like trying to do modern chemistry without learning how the periodic table works.
This is not a new problem. For instance, The Daily Show described the issue brilliantly almost 2 years ago.