If any for-profit hospital tried that approach, the libertarian solution of "Then you can sue them" would prevent it from going on too long. Certainly not for the whole summer.
Libertarians believe you should be able to sue people for choosing to take vacation instead of providing you services? A private hospital wouldn't have the freedom to sell its services howsoever it chose, including saying "sorry, we're on vacation, come back next month"? What's the Libertarian ground for a lawsuit against someone who says "wow, there are suddenly lots of customers desperate for my product, I can raise prices to maximize profits"? Isn't that how the "free market" is supposed to work, regardless of whether it murders people unable to pay prices set at the profit-maximizing point?
Wow, maybe Libertarians less ideologically inflexible than I thought --- they think you should be able to sue to prevent free market pricing from causing harm, imposing non-market-based government controls to avert socially harmful market failures. Mandating price and production levels to best serve the public good, rather than allowing private providers to set their own policies according to profit maximization (or vacation time desires): how very Libertarian?!?!
Scientists? I think you mean Big Ag executives, who are far from the science lab. The scientists are not dumb; just a bit intentionally ignorant to keep their jobs and support their families --- "just following orders" without freedom to question the broader societal impacts of their work. The executives at the top coordinate their regiments of scientists with the marketing/PR/lobbying departments (often a much larger effort in cost and manpower than the science part) to spread the toxin of the day over every square inch of crops. Follow the money --- it's never the scientists who become billionaires off this shit.
All right, large-scale for-profit drug pushing corporations capable of controlling national policy and propaganda regarding their wares can also be highly dangerous. A great more modern example of this is the US Big Tobacco industry, and their decades of suppressing scientific research that would allow the public to make more informed decisions about the health impacts of smoking. Prohibitionists are bad; megacorporations pushing highly addictive substances are bad. A balanced solution is to allow drug production and distribution, but only on a decentralized small scale --- to make sure that no big commercial interests (with conflicts of interest regarding the distribution of accurate health information about their products) are able to dominate the system.
Comparing my statistical chances of being injured or killed by a stabby druggy, to being injured or killed by a car driver under the influence of alcohol or cellphones, I'd say the intensive focus on drug prohibition is highly misplaced. Also, when people have safe and legal access to treatment options (including maintenance drug supply levels for the most unbreakable addictions), they don't need to stab anyone.
Make sure you publish if you get negative results, too --- that's just as important, and puts you on equal ground with all the mega-multi-million-dollar big dark matter experiments that also haven't found anything yet. Ruling out previously untested possibilities is a worthwhile task, and just about the most that any dark matter researcher can realistically hope for. And, if you think publishing "has no benefit," why are you doing this anyway? There's no monetary payback to the experimenter, but isn't doing science and expanding human knowledge the reward in itself that makes "wasting time" on a hobby project worthwhile? Good luck, and have fun.
I agree it's "reasonably accurate" as a "closest modern equivalent" for a one-word translation. However, the original post above was addressing the question "were Adam and Eve married, or just shacking up together?". In a modern cultural context, there's typically a clear distinction drawn between two people who are "cohabiting" ("living in sin!" according to socially conservative religious sects), versus couples who have the approved copulation license signed by church and state. Operating from this frame, it makes sense to ask about (or poke fun at) Adam and Eve's marital status before popping out children. However, given that the original Hebrew doesn't provide a linguistic distinction for this division --- whether "isha" means "woman" or "wife" --- the best answer to "were Adam and Eve married, or just cohabiting" is not to say "the Bible says they were married," but to point out that that distinction did not exist (or at least was not a major concern) at the time. Marriage as a contractual/normative relation, rather than a descriptive statement that two people were shacking up, is an anachronistic in the Adam and Eve story.
I am trying to detect dark matter (no link - sorry)
No link? At least say what type of detection method (and corresponding range of DM possibilities) you're using! Is there a particular section of parameter space that you think you can access that's not solidly covered by existing academic DM experiments? Sounds like fun in any case.
Of course, these days, even getting "a steady income from which you can support yourself and family" can be a difficult task --- landing a "dream job" professor position from "within the system" is hard, but so can be getting a tolerable job that provides enough for both family and major hobby time/money commitments.
It may be "normal," but that hardly makes it a solid line of "proof" that the Biblical text specifically meant to say the couple was "already married" (for whatever societal institution marriage meant in X00 BC). The phrasing neither proves nor disproves the Hebrew scribal authorial intent in indicating the "legal" status of the relationship between Adam and Eve. At best, what can be inferred from the lack of linguistic distinction, is that being "officially married" or not didn't particularly matter either way at the time of writing, compared to later periods where it was a big deal to be cohabiting without formal procedural approval, instead of just being "that gal Eve who hangs around naked with Adam."
Attempting to infer or impose contemporary marital norms on Adam and Eve's relationship, based on an English translation of words from an entirely different cultural context, is erroneous --- there is no grounds for a hard assertion that Adam and Eve "were married - the first couple, wed by God," based on a scriptural text that originally lacked the linguistic capability to even make such a distinction. Saying they "were married" is a convenient translator's tool for speaking to a modern listener, but not a rigorous scholarly characterization of some construct of "marriage" extending from the present day to the scriptural period.
Disproving these wacko's science is as futile an effort as disproving "Intelligent Design"-proponents "science." No matter what weight of scientific evidence, shills are content to take an unending "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" approach, repeating old disproven lies and mixing in new shallow idiocy. At one point, I would have taken up arguing scientific points with folks like you... but I've given up, since it's always hopeless. Whether "Intelligent Design" Creationists or AGW-deniers or Alien Abduction enthusiasts, you dogmatic twerps never engage in honest scientific discussion anyway (since you seem fundamentally incapable of it). You are hopeless. I will keep my scientific discussions with scientifically-minded people (who do have contradictory and dissenting opinions, but can tell the difference between conspiracy theory dogmatic denialism and scientific discourse).
Agreed, I'm not trying to support the Bible as being conclusive, self-contained "proof" of anything. And, when it comes to words changing, "marriage" is one of the most problematic. Despite the gross simplifications of those people who call for a return to the proper "Biblical Meaning of Marriage," there is no such thing. The Biblical record covers a long and varied period, over which many different forms and meanings for marriage were observed. Statements about "marriage" in different portions of the Hebrew scriptures refer to a variety of cultural institutions, changing with the times (depending on what culture had most recently conquered the region); which are different from the Jewish and Greco-Roman marriage institutions of the New Testament era. So, even if the text did say Eve was Adam's "wife," this would refer to an entirely different cultural institution and understanding of "marriage" from that commented on in Paul's epistles, which is itself different from today's institutions.
I'm sorry, quoting a page from fringe shill sources ("Principia Scientifica International") doesn't demonstrate scientific understanding of the issues. What you're doing is like "disproving" evolution by showing that it's hotly debated on Creationist websites. The scientific community who study this stuff --- just like the scientific community that favors evolution over Creationism for describing the development of life on earth --- is not "hotly debating" the stream of unpublished, unscientific, flakey propaganda shit that you're hooked on. A tiny handful of fringe wackos does not counterbalance the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the broad validity of AGW.
While the Hebrew portions of the biblical text do appear to have been fairly accurately preserved from sources dating back to a few centuries BC, the post you are replying to does have a good point with respect to citing English translations therefrom. Note the informative post above yours stating that Hebrew uses the same word for "wife" and "woman" (I can't personally verify this, since I don't know Hebrew). In this case, using "wife" in the English text to prove "they were already married" is highly sketchy.
Evolution doesn't imply progression towards some better, higher, or more noble form of life --- only differential reproductive advantage for one's environment. And these folks' environment is... *Texas.*
Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking and understanding of the best-evidence-available scientific consensus on AGW. The scientists researching these topics overwhelmingly agree that the evidence is strong, not weak, for global warming (significantly outside natural cycles) due to anthropogenic effects. The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute, and how much; etc. Just as you can find some token PhD-holding academics who will *still* deny evolution and push creationism, you can find a few eccentrics who outright reject the basics of AGW; but this is no more "hotly debated" in the field than creationism versus evolution is "hotly debated" in evolutionary biology labs. AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill.
I'm not so certain about that. Clear and intelligent discussion advancing scientific understanding of evolution generally takes place without caring about Creationist idiots at all. The "response" to Creationism has been a glut of simplified, dumbed-down mass market counter-Creationist propaganda, that's rarely on the cutting edge itself of scientific/philosophical discourse. The bar for responding to Creationists sets a pretty low standard; and does not produce an environment where the finer nuances of evolutionary theory can be explored. The result is lots of prominence for writers like Richard Dawkins --- who, while doing a fine job on the low-brow propaganda side, often steamroll over the scientifically interesting questions of evolutionary theory to present an overly simplistic synthesis, with primary emphasis on cheap-shot rhetoric against religion.
side note --- I do object to the overly-broad generalization that "Christians" renamed came up with the "Intelligent Design" name. Pathological lying scum who are a small subset of Christianity came up with the "Intelligent Design" obfuscation. As a Christian, and one with no qualms about calling out intellectually dishonest politically motivated liars for what they are, I don't like getting reflexively lumped in with those frauds.
The 6 are only those their position firmly on the anti-science side. Presumably, creationism gets pushed through the process by a larger majority who silently sympathize, publicly advocating for a "neutral" stance that gives the view of these six equal footing with scientific knowledge. Recall, also, that a lot of "intelligent design" proponents are proven pathological liars, who will go to great lengths to intentionally obfuscate their views and aims, in order to avoid direct "separation of church and state" challenges.
What a snappy soundbite! However, it seems contradicted by all available facts. *Government-run* healthcare services based on legislated bureaucracies are the ones that put the US "private enterprise" model to shame for return on costs. It turns out you *can* legislate efficiency, as demonstrated in numerous working examples, even if dogmatic right-wing beliefs say this is impossible.
However, these were discontinued a long time ago, and are now collector's items (worth more than face value). From the page you linked, there are only 165k $1k bills known to exist --- so a transfer of this size in $1k bills would require cornering the market to collect basically every single $1k bill in existence (which would be rather difficult, I expect).
There are, however, various non-US-legal-tender bank certificates / bonds / etc. that can represent very large sums "payable to bearer" by big financial institutions that regularly do business with organized crime moguls. Consult your Swiss, Vatican, Citibank, or J.P. Morgan Chase bank representatives for the convenient options available for funneling organized crime cash (on multi billion dollar scales) around.
I would start by using my rope to tie up the idiot who decided to clone a gigantic top predator, put it in a half-assed cage, and invite me over to see a "surprise." Hopefully, while Mr. Meekeycheeks was eating the little snack I left tied up for him, I'll have time to position myself on the opposite side of something much larger, slower moving, and delicious looking.
Re:Another poorly-thought out Slashdot story title
on
Happy 50th Doctor Who
·
· Score: 2
I know, this title is completely baffling. Happy 50th Doctor Who... what? Doctor Who Performed A Heart Surgery? Doctor Who Won A Pie Eating Contest? It's as if the title is about something intentionally ambiguous, leaving one forever asking "Doctor Who...?" without clear resolution.
We do have a shortage of engineers. There's a distinct shortage of engineers willing to work unlimited hours for laughably low wages under demoralizing petty authoritarian management, after spending years of their life and racking up $100+K in debt on the promise of decent employment. This shortfall is made up for by the H1B program.
After I finish a meal, there is sometimes a steak knife and a bottle of A-1 left with a skeleton. This is not generally a reliable indicator that said skeleton originally supported a carnivore.
Why is managing to create best use of a figure with more zeros after it fundamentally harder than managing one with fewer? Succeeding in generating good returns having been handed a lower initial chunk of money seems even more impressive than getting results starting with more resources. If the $100B corporation CEO wants to see his pay raised appropriately, then he should prove that he's good enough at managing money to raise everyone else's salary below his, too --- if you can't grow your investments enough to afford to pay your workers more, then why should society be rewarding you with more pay (for not improving the conditions of everyone around you)?
Slashdot Mirror
If any for-profit hospital tried that approach, the libertarian solution of "Then you can sue them" would prevent it from going on too long. Certainly not for the whole summer.
Libertarians believe you should be able to sue people for choosing to take vacation instead of providing you services? A private hospital wouldn't have the freedom to sell its services howsoever it chose, including saying "sorry, we're on vacation, come back next month"? What's the Libertarian ground for a lawsuit against someone who says "wow, there are suddenly lots of customers desperate for my product, I can raise prices to maximize profits"? Isn't that how the "free market" is supposed to work, regardless of whether it murders people unable to pay prices set at the profit-maximizing point?
Wow, maybe Libertarians less ideologically inflexible than I thought --- they think you should be able to sue to prevent free market pricing from causing harm, imposing non-market-based government controls to avert socially harmful market failures. Mandating price and production levels to best serve the public good, rather than allowing private providers to set their own policies according to profit maximization (or vacation time desires): how very Libertarian?!?!
Scientists? I think you mean Big Ag executives, who are far from the science lab. The scientists are not dumb; just a bit intentionally ignorant to keep their jobs and support their families --- "just following orders" without freedom to question the broader societal impacts of their work. The executives at the top coordinate their regiments of scientists with the marketing/PR/lobbying departments (often a much larger effort in cost and manpower than the science part) to spread the toxin of the day over every square inch of crops. Follow the money --- it's never the scientists who become billionaires off this shit.
All right, large-scale for-profit drug pushing corporations capable of controlling national policy and propaganda regarding their wares can also be highly dangerous. A great more modern example of this is the US Big Tobacco industry, and their decades of suppressing scientific research that would allow the public to make more informed decisions about the health impacts of smoking. Prohibitionists are bad; megacorporations pushing highly addictive substances are bad. A balanced solution is to allow drug production and distribution, but only on a decentralized small scale --- to make sure that no big commercial interests (with conflicts of interest regarding the distribution of accurate health information about their products) are able to dominate the system.
Comparing my statistical chances of being injured or killed by a stabby druggy, to being injured or killed by a car driver under the influence of alcohol or cellphones, I'd say the intensive focus on drug prohibition is highly misplaced. Also, when people have safe and legal access to treatment options (including maintenance drug supply levels for the most unbreakable addictions), they don't need to stab anyone.
Make sure you publish if you get negative results, too --- that's just as important, and puts you on equal ground with all the mega-multi-million-dollar big dark matter experiments that also haven't found anything yet. Ruling out previously untested possibilities is a worthwhile task, and just about the most that any dark matter researcher can realistically hope for. And, if you think publishing "has no benefit," why are you doing this anyway? There's no monetary payback to the experimenter, but isn't doing science and expanding human knowledge the reward in itself that makes "wasting time" on a hobby project worthwhile? Good luck, and have fun.
I agree it's "reasonably accurate" as a "closest modern equivalent" for a one-word translation. However, the original post above was addressing the question "were Adam and Eve married, or just shacking up together?". In a modern cultural context, there's typically a clear distinction drawn between two people who are "cohabiting" ("living in sin!" according to socially conservative religious sects), versus couples who have the approved copulation license signed by church and state. Operating from this frame, it makes sense to ask about (or poke fun at) Adam and Eve's marital status before popping out children. However, given that the original Hebrew doesn't provide a linguistic distinction for this division --- whether "isha" means "woman" or "wife" --- the best answer to "were Adam and Eve married, or just cohabiting" is not to say "the Bible says they were married," but to point out that that distinction did not exist (or at least was not a major concern) at the time. Marriage as a contractual/normative relation, rather than a descriptive statement that two people were shacking up, is an anachronistic in the Adam and Eve story.
I am trying to detect dark matter (no link - sorry)
No link? At least say what type of detection method (and corresponding range of DM possibilities) you're using! Is there a particular section of parameter space that you think you can access that's not solidly covered by existing academic DM experiments? Sounds like fun in any case.
Of course, these days, even getting "a steady income from which you can support yourself and family" can be a difficult task --- landing a "dream job" professor position from "within the system" is hard, but so can be getting a tolerable job that provides enough for both family and major hobby time/money commitments.
It may be "normal," but that hardly makes it a solid line of "proof" that the Biblical text specifically meant to say the couple was "already married" (for whatever societal institution marriage meant in X00 BC). The phrasing neither proves nor disproves the Hebrew scribal authorial intent in indicating the "legal" status of the relationship between Adam and Eve. At best, what can be inferred from the lack of linguistic distinction, is that being "officially married" or not didn't particularly matter either way at the time of writing, compared to later periods where it was a big deal to be cohabiting without formal procedural approval, instead of just being "that gal Eve who hangs around naked with Adam."
Attempting to infer or impose contemporary marital norms on Adam and Eve's relationship, based on an English translation of words from an entirely different cultural context, is erroneous --- there is no grounds for a hard assertion that Adam and Eve "were married - the first couple, wed by God," based on a scriptural text that originally lacked the linguistic capability to even make such a distinction. Saying they "were married" is a convenient translator's tool for speaking to a modern listener, but not a rigorous scholarly characterization of some construct of "marriage" extending from the present day to the scriptural period.
If you can't spot at least half a dozen sophomoric flaws in the article you posted yourself, then you're beyond hope for rational discourse.
Disproving these wacko's science is as futile an effort as disproving "Intelligent Design"-proponents "science." No matter what weight of scientific evidence, shills are content to take an unending "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" approach, repeating old disproven lies and mixing in new shallow idiocy. At one point, I would have taken up arguing scientific points with folks like you... but I've given up, since it's always hopeless. Whether "Intelligent Design" Creationists or AGW-deniers or Alien Abduction enthusiasts, you dogmatic twerps never engage in honest scientific discussion anyway (since you seem fundamentally incapable of it). You are hopeless. I will keep my scientific discussions with scientifically-minded people (who do have contradictory and dissenting opinions, but can tell the difference between conspiracy theory dogmatic denialism and scientific discourse).
Agreed, I'm not trying to support the Bible as being conclusive, self-contained "proof" of anything. And, when it comes to words changing, "marriage" is one of the most problematic. Despite the gross simplifications of those people who call for a return to the proper "Biblical Meaning of Marriage," there is no such thing. The Biblical record covers a long and varied period, over which many different forms and meanings for marriage were observed. Statements about "marriage" in different portions of the Hebrew scriptures refer to a variety of cultural institutions, changing with the times (depending on what culture had most recently conquered the region); which are different from the Jewish and Greco-Roman marriage institutions of the New Testament era. So, even if the text did say Eve was Adam's "wife," this would refer to an entirely different cultural institution and understanding of "marriage" from that commented on in Paul's epistles, which is itself different from today's institutions.
I'm sorry, quoting a page from fringe shill sources ("Principia Scientifica International") doesn't demonstrate scientific understanding of the issues. What you're doing is like "disproving" evolution by showing that it's hotly debated on Creationist websites. The scientific community who study this stuff --- just like the scientific community that favors evolution over Creationism for describing the development of life on earth --- is not "hotly debating" the stream of unpublished, unscientific, flakey propaganda shit that you're hooked on. A tiny handful of fringe wackos does not counterbalance the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the broad validity of AGW.
While the Hebrew portions of the biblical text do appear to have been fairly accurately preserved from sources dating back to a few centuries BC, the post you are replying to does have a good point with respect to citing English translations therefrom. Note the informative post above yours stating that Hebrew uses the same word for "wife" and "woman" (I can't personally verify this, since I don't know Hebrew). In this case, using "wife" in the English text to prove "they were already married" is highly sketchy.
Evolution doesn't imply progression towards some better, higher, or more noble form of life --- only differential reproductive advantage for one's environment. And these folks' environment is ... *Texas.*
Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking and understanding of the best-evidence-available scientific consensus on AGW. The scientists researching these topics overwhelmingly agree that the evidence is strong, not weak, for global warming (significantly outside natural cycles) due to anthropogenic effects. The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute, and how much; etc. Just as you can find some token PhD-holding academics who will *still* deny evolution and push creationism, you can find a few eccentrics who outright reject the basics of AGW; but this is no more "hotly debated" in the field than creationism versus evolution is "hotly debated" in evolutionary biology labs. AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill.
I'm not so certain about that. Clear and intelligent discussion advancing scientific understanding of evolution generally takes place without caring about Creationist idiots at all. The "response" to Creationism has been a glut of simplified, dumbed-down mass market counter-Creationist propaganda, that's rarely on the cutting edge itself of scientific/philosophical discourse. The bar for responding to Creationists sets a pretty low standard; and does not produce an environment where the finer nuances of evolutionary theory can be explored. The result is lots of prominence for writers like Richard Dawkins --- who, while doing a fine job on the low-brow propaganda side, often steamroll over the scientifically interesting questions of evolutionary theory to present an overly simplistic synthesis, with primary emphasis on cheap-shot rhetoric against religion.
"Intelligent Metaprogramming"?
side note --- I do object to the overly-broad generalization that "Christians" renamed came up with the "Intelligent Design" name. Pathological lying scum who are a small subset of Christianity came up with the "Intelligent Design" obfuscation. As a Christian, and one with no qualms about calling out intellectually dishonest politically motivated liars for what they are, I don't like getting reflexively lumped in with those frauds.
The 6 are only those their position firmly on the anti-science side. Presumably, creationism gets pushed through the process by a larger majority who silently sympathize, publicly advocating for a "neutral" stance that gives the view of these six equal footing with scientific knowledge. Recall, also, that a lot of "intelligent design" proponents are proven pathological liars, who will go to great lengths to intentionally obfuscate their views and aims, in order to avoid direct "separation of church and state" challenges.
What a snappy soundbite! However, it seems contradicted by all available facts. *Government-run* healthcare services based on legislated bureaucracies are the ones that put the US "private enterprise" model to shame for return on costs. It turns out you *can* legislate efficiency, as demonstrated in numerous working examples, even if dogmatic right-wing beliefs say this is impossible.
However, these were discontinued a long time ago, and are now collector's items (worth more than face value). From the page you linked, there are only 165k $1k bills known to exist --- so a transfer of this size in $1k bills would require cornering the market to collect basically every single $1k bill in existence (which would be rather difficult, I expect).
There are, however, various non-US-legal-tender bank certificates / bonds / etc. that can represent very large sums "payable to bearer" by big financial institutions that regularly do business with organized crime moguls. Consult your Swiss, Vatican, Citibank, or J.P. Morgan Chase bank representatives for the convenient options available for funneling organized crime cash (on multi billion dollar scales) around.
I would start by using my rope to tie up the idiot who decided to clone a gigantic top predator, put it in a half-assed cage, and invite me over to see a "surprise." Hopefully, while Mr. Meekeycheeks was eating the little snack I left tied up for him, I'll have time to position myself on the opposite side of something much larger, slower moving, and delicious looking.
I know, this title is completely baffling. Happy 50th Doctor Who... what? Doctor Who Performed A Heart Surgery? Doctor Who Won A Pie Eating Contest? It's as if the title is about something intentionally ambiguous, leaving one forever asking "Doctor Who...?" without clear resolution.
We do have a shortage of engineers. There's a distinct shortage of engineers willing to work unlimited hours for laughably low wages under demoralizing petty authoritarian management, after spending years of their life and racking up $100+K in debt on the promise of decent employment. This shortfall is made up for by the H1B program.
After I finish a meal, there is sometimes a steak knife and a bottle of A-1 left with a skeleton. This is not generally a reliable indicator that said skeleton originally supported a carnivore.
Why is managing to create best use of a figure with more zeros after it fundamentally harder than managing one with fewer? Succeeding in generating good returns having been handed a lower initial chunk of money seems even more impressive than getting results starting with more resources. If the $100B corporation CEO wants to see his pay raised appropriately, then he should prove that he's good enough at managing money to raise everyone else's salary below his, too --- if you can't grow your investments enough to afford to pay your workers more, then why should society be rewarding you with more pay (for not improving the conditions of everyone around you)?