Medicine is not perfect. Thalidomide did in fact harm people. But unlike quackery, the scientific basis behind medicine caused people to stop using thalidomide on pregnant women. With quackery, they still dilute magic potions 100 years after the concept was debunked. Obviously if I can't convince you that vaccines work, we can't really progress along the line of how they are best implemented. If we're past that point, why even bring it up?
Why would you ask the owner of a car how its reliability is compared to other cars on the road? Most people have a sample size of two. That's a stupid question to ask. The phenomenon of people justifying their decisions is a real one, but nothing you've said here contradicts sjbe's point.
Consumer Reports car recommendations went off-path in the 80s. Just like the article says, most car "reliability" problems became nickle-and-dime stuff, yet their recommendations don't weight a power window switch malfunction differently than the engine exploding. Buyers of American cars in the 80s and 90s were very familiar with the car falling to pieces around them, but were generally willing to make the compromise because they saved thousands at purchase and when something inevitably went wrong, parts were cheap and repairs could be done by any idiot with a garage and a wrench. Do I want to know if the drive-train of a car is more or less likely to malfunction? YES! But it would be foolish to trade a car with an easy-to-fix transmission that is known to be unreliable for a car with a transmission that is 2x as reliable but 3x more expensive to fix. Do I want to know if the trim and electronics are going to go all wonky? Sure, but I certainly won't weight it as highly as the drive-train. Consumer Reports is disconnected from this, and so I have trouble taking their recommendations as anything more than a small datapoint.
First of all, I'm not sure how the Constitution is involved. No one's free speech is being infringed upon. This isn't even in the US. But lets pretend that it is for the purposes of our discussion. Nurses are self-regulating and have a professional organization that accredits individual nurses. If one of their accreditation criteria is to prohibit dissemination of medical quackery, I'm not sure how the Constitution is involved at all. Second of all, if the government were to get involved, this can be done within the framework of the Constitution by using carrots instead of sticks.
Well, for a lot of uses, slap-dash is "good enough". I don't really need my $30/month prepay service that I use to get phone calls from my wife telling me to pick up laundry detergent to be bulletproof - it just needs to work well enough that I get by another month without getting too pissed off. If they went all space shuttle control software on my phone and the network, it probably would all drift outside of my price range. I suspect for high-security applications, there are already bolt-on solutions that let you securely communicate with your basement email server.
No bullshit? How can you say that? He - totally straight-faced - says things like there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. How is that not bullshit? You should be happy that Western leaders aren't so "straightforward". If Obama acted like that we'd currently be having a war with Russia.
Agreed, it has been far too long for the refresh on the Pro models - and it's very hard to recommend them at their current price.
With that said, they might not be letting them die a slow death, but rather been unhappy with that particular generation of Intel mobile chips in a "Pro" model.
To be fair, some of us like Macs because it's a super-easy way to get a smoothly operating unix laptop. The hardware is generally within +/- 10% of equivalent Windows gear - though that calculus got difficult for a while when Apple fell behind the Intel upgrade curve. I run Linux all day, every day, but it's in a VM, so at the end of the day I don't really care what the underlying OS is.
My base ideology is libertarian, so I'm all for individual freedoms. I honestly believe that, in the vast majority of cases, a system that emphasizes strong individual freedom and personal responsibility will leave humanity better off.
With that said, all ideologies eventually smack into reality, and none to date deal with it perfectly. One of these realities are germs. Disease does not respect the individual model and demands a coordinated approach. Absent a 100% safe and effective vaccine (which would be compatible with individualism), the only way to stomp out a communicable disease is to reduce the population with it to such a degree that it fizzles out.
As such, I feel that we can and should make allowances for individuals to act selfishly or in ignorance, but only up to the point where the vaccines are no longer effective in wiping out the diseases. At that point, you have to make the pragmatic decision to set your failed ideology to the side for the moment and solve the problem at hand.
Turnout is obviously important, but this is somewhat lessened by the electoral college and the tendency of states to go one direction or another based on geography. Yard signs are nice, but most of these polls do make an effort to determine "likely voters". There are also simply more Democrats than Republicans nationwide (again, tempered by the geographic differences).
He may or may not have been smarter, but the guy was straight-up paranoid. History might reveal the same about Hillary, but so far we don't have evidence of this.
You can call Clinton a number of things. I'm not a fan, so I'm inclined to agree with many of them. But stupid, she is not.
And that is what she would have to be to get involved with this sort of thing when she's so clearly ahead in the election. Her dilemma at this point is not "win at all costs", but "How can I expand the Democratic footprint?".
Somehow I've managed to travel all over the world on business, not speaking a lick of whatever language the cab drivers are speaking and have managed to get to my flight every time. I'm not taking a side here - it seems that a reasonable expectation to have a cab driver in England speak English... but let's not overstate the very basic communication needed here.
Slashdot Mirror
Medicine is not perfect. Thalidomide did in fact harm people. But unlike quackery, the scientific basis behind medicine caused people to stop using thalidomide on pregnant women. With quackery, they still dilute magic potions 100 years after the concept was debunked. Obviously if I can't convince you that vaccines work, we can't really progress along the line of how they are best implemented. If we're past that point, why even bring it up?
Why would you ask the owner of a car how its reliability is compared to other cars on the road? Most people have a sample size of two. That's a stupid question to ask. The phenomenon of people justifying their decisions is a real one, but nothing you've said here contradicts sjbe's point.
Consumer Reports car recommendations went off-path in the 80s. Just like the article says, most car "reliability" problems became nickle-and-dime stuff, yet their recommendations don't weight a power window switch malfunction differently than the engine exploding. Buyers of American cars in the 80s and 90s were very familiar with the car falling to pieces around them, but were generally willing to make the compromise because they saved thousands at purchase and when something inevitably went wrong, parts were cheap and repairs could be done by any idiot with a garage and a wrench. Do I want to know if the drive-train of a car is more or less likely to malfunction? YES! But it would be foolish to trade a car with an easy-to-fix transmission that is known to be unreliable for a car with a transmission that is 2x as reliable but 3x more expensive to fix. Do I want to know if the trim and electronics are going to go all wonky? Sure, but I certainly won't weight it as highly as the drive-train. Consumer Reports is disconnected from this, and so I have trouble taking their recommendations as anything more than a small datapoint.
You have an interesting memory there.
First of all, I'm not sure how the Constitution is involved. No one's free speech is being infringed upon. This isn't even in the US. But lets pretend that it is for the purposes of our discussion. Nurses are self-regulating and have a professional organization that accredits individual nurses. If one of their accreditation criteria is to prohibit dissemination of medical quackery, I'm not sure how the Constitution is involved at all. Second of all, if the government were to get involved, this can be done within the framework of the Constitution by using carrots instead of sticks.
Come to think of it, I would notice a new tower as well because of my "Llama" app that uses the towers to trigger actions.
But so long as the CIA/NSA/KGB/Verizon or whatever nefarious agency is willing to forward my conversation about milk to the proper wife, I'm good.
Well, coming full circle, one way to educate people is to make sure that your registered nurses are not disseminating quack theories.
Well, for a lot of uses, slap-dash is "good enough". I don't really need my $30/month prepay service that I use to get phone calls from my wife telling me to pick up laundry detergent to be bulletproof - it just needs to work well enough that I get by another month without getting too pissed off. If they went all space shuttle control software on my phone and the network, it probably would all drift outside of my price range. I suspect for high-security applications, there are already bolt-on solutions that let you securely communicate with your basement email server.
Let's say your claims are true. I'm not the one claiming that Obama is "no bullshit".
I could see wingnuts of any flavor loving a strongman, but what self-respecting libertarian would admire someone who would curtail individual liberty?
No bullshit? How can you say that? He - totally straight-faced - says things like there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. How is that not bullshit? You should be happy that Western leaders aren't so "straightforward". If Obama acted like that we'd currently be having a war with Russia.
Agreed, it has been far too long for the refresh on the Pro models - and it's very hard to recommend them at their current price.
With that said, they might not be letting them die a slow death, but rather been unhappy with that particular generation of Intel mobile chips in a "Pro" model.
To be fair, some of us like Macs because it's a super-easy way to get a smoothly operating unix laptop. The hardware is generally within +/- 10% of equivalent Windows gear - though that calculus got difficult for a while when Apple fell behind the Intel upgrade curve. I run Linux all day, every day, but it's in a VM, so at the end of the day I don't really care what the underlying OS is.
My base ideology is libertarian, so I'm all for individual freedoms. I honestly believe that, in the vast majority of cases, a system that emphasizes strong individual freedom and personal responsibility will leave humanity better off.
With that said, all ideologies eventually smack into reality, and none to date deal with it perfectly. One of these realities are germs. Disease does not respect the individual model and demands a coordinated approach. Absent a 100% safe and effective vaccine (which would be compatible with individualism), the only way to stomp out a communicable disease is to reduce the population with it to such a degree that it fizzles out.
As such, I feel that we can and should make allowances for individuals to act selfishly or in ignorance, but only up to the point where the vaccines are no longer effective in wiping out the diseases. At that point, you have to make the pragmatic decision to set your failed ideology to the side for the moment and solve the problem at hand.
Also, people predicted the twists and turns of the polling months and years ago, before anyone knew who the candidates were going to be.
Couldn't that just mean that people behave predictably around elections, rather than indicating that the polling is manipulated?
Bookmark this and come back on the 9th. You don't believe me today, but you will then.
I'll agree to that if you agree, when the popular vote is 6 million votes against him, not to claim electoral fraud.
Turnout is obviously important, but this is somewhat lessened by the electoral college and the tendency of states to go one direction or another based on geography. Yard signs are nice, but most of these polls do make an effort to determine "likely voters". There are also simply more Democrats than Republicans nationwide (again, tempered by the geographic differences).
I assume I'm supposed to interpret this is some way that shows that Trump will win?
He may or may not have been smarter, but the guy was straight-up paranoid. History might reveal the same about Hillary, but so far we don't have evidence of this.
No, I'm "immersed" in data as opposed to what my Facebook feed looks like, or what my friends say.
They speak enough English to get you where you are going - but in no way could they pass the requirement mentioned here.
You can call Clinton a number of things. I'm not a fan, so I'm inclined to agree with many of them. But stupid, she is not.
And that is what she would have to be to get involved with this sort of thing when she's so clearly ahead in the election. Her dilemma at this point is not "win at all costs", but "How can I expand the Democratic footprint?".
Somehow I've managed to travel all over the world on business, not speaking a lick of whatever language the cab drivers are speaking and have managed to get to my flight every time. I'm not taking a side here - it seems that a reasonable expectation to have a cab driver in England speak English... but let's not overstate the very basic communication needed here.
IIRC, they did not disable the feature for people who were already using it - so there was nothing to switch back on.
Motorola is owned by Lenovo.
I _think_ these are all up on archive.org. At least the Functional Programming in Python one that I'm reading is.