"Health Theater". I like it. I'm going to remember that.
...or it could be every problem is a nail...
I think there's an element of that. It's more likely that there's an unconscious bias in play somewhere. It's the same reason why double-blind studies are so important in research. Single blind is sufficient to counter the placebo effect, but double blind is mandatory to prevent physician bias. Unfortunately, double blind doesn't work well for medical diagnosis!
On the other hand, price for drugs drop when demand increases...
Is this satire? That only applies once a drug has gone generic (and only sometimes, at that). If they can make a bigger profit selling at a higher price point, they will. It may be extortion, but it's business.
There are unpatented drugs, with generics, that are only by prescription. You can always ask, but the doctor can always tell you it's impossible. Of course, even generic prescriptions tend to be cheaper. Usually you can work with the pharmacist to get a generic. Once you have the brand-name prescription, the doctor no longer needs to be involved at all.
Parent may be AC, but he's 100% right. I've heard of nurse practitioners who are better than the doctors they work with. This isn't to say that they're qualified to do everything that a doctor can, but they are qualified to take most of the workload that we give doctors. And yes, they can frequently diagnose on their own and write prescriptions (or ask for consultation when they can't).
And then you have the other side of the coin, where not enough testing is done, and retesting must be ordered. Often, this means redoing previous tests to give relevant context to the new tests. It would be cheapest to order the right amount of tests the first time.
All this talk about unnecessary testing, while important, has some doctors a bit gun-shy. This too, is bad, and leads to more expensive care.
(I'm not knocking your comment. You're right. You just brought up the context, and I'm playing off it.)
The American education system itself isn't that bad. It's not the best, but it's not the worst, either. The main problem is the people.
Neither is it homogeneous. There are places where it's pretty bad. Very generally speaking, where society is weakest, so are the schools.
A large portion of Americans are religious to the point where they refuse to acknowledge reality.
Oh, really. I think that portion is smaller than you're willing to accept. A larger portion of Americans are politicized to the point where they refuse to acknowledge reality. This is doubly true when religion is being talked about (from EITHER side of the aisle).
Even when it's readily available and of a high quality, these people will shun any education that may remotely challenge their religious beliefs in one way or another.
Happens from time to time, but there really isn't that much friction between science and religion. We're talking about evolution, geologic time, and maybe abortion (plus a few odds and ends). That leaves a lot of ground uncovered.
They steer clear away from any sort of science, and many of them even distrust mathematics.
Oh, really? That's a new one. I don't doubt the possibility, but I've never run across it. You're really speaking about a niche group now.
This distrust and outright hatred of science and math doesn't leave them very many useful fields to study.
I guess it wouldn't. Who are we talking about again that fits this bill? I've never met them.
There's another large portion of Americans who aspire to be nothing more than "gangstas".
This is true, and unfortunate. But our media is willing to market to (and glorify) the gangsta' culture. It's hard to fight that while retaining free-speech (a must).
Even when involving a curriculum developed by non-whites and taught by non-whites, these people still insist on rejecting "the white man's education".
There are some of those. I generally don't believe this excuse. The issue is cultural, and usually boils down to poor school experience with limited home support. But if they can blame it on the white man, many of them will. It's really sad to see racism start off this way, but it happens.
Finally, there is the whole "hipster" phenomenon. These are adults who are mentally still children, usually due to growing up in a household where everything was provided to them.
That's half the picture. It's what wasn't provided them which is truly problematic. They aren't (weren't) provided with a useful view of society. All they experienced were school and leisure home life. Nothing was expected of them, but neither were they permitted to show initiative, to wander or experiment. All they were permitted to play with were video games.
...or by studying a field that offers absolutely no job prospects and no real-world value.
If you were following your heart, and had absolutely no idea what the job market was like, what field would you choose? Again, I blame school systems and parents. Frequently, the things taught are worthless, and the things of value are omitted.
It was one thing when there was a small portion of Americans who would embrace ignorance. There have always been people like that, and nothing can be done for them. But these days, we're talking about 60% or more of Americans who willfully and voluntarily reject a useful education. That's a recipe for disaster.
Rejecting education today has very little to do with embracing ignorance. It's mostly about sour grapes. There is a presupposition that it's out of reach, so why try?
Of course, then there are those of us who choose to believe in both science and religion. Crazy talk, yes, I know.
The fact of the matter is, there is a lot of stuff we simply don't know. A hundred years ago, current tech would have been considered downright fanciful. It really isn't a big leap to assume an omniscient deity would be able to make better use of fundamental laws of reality (physics, etc) far better than we're ready to accept.
This doesn't preclude our own bumbling attempts to understand the universe, along with all the wonderful things science and education bring. I, for one, refuse the false dichotomy.
You'd be referring to passages in the Old Testament (and if you're clever, misquoted passages from the New).
I really don't think you have any idea what the Middle Eastern cultures were like back then. They've actually gotten much better, despite some of them still living in the pre-medieval ages. God doesn't change, but what people need changes. In Moses' day, they were actually incapable (as a people) of learning the gospel principles as taught by Christ. Instead, they were given laws to prepare them as a people to eventually reach that point.
You're also struggling with the concept of immortality of the soul, and the ability of God to judge fairly and justly. The fact of the matter is, things in this life cannot be fair and just. It's part of the purpose of this life, to learn just how bad things can be in an unjust society. If we don't learn this, we won't be prepared for eternity. We won't be willing or capable of obeying reasonable laws forming a just society. (This isn't to say that we shouldn't try. I think that's also important to the learning process: learning how something works by reinventing it. Math teachers like this technique.)
I know I didn't properly address your concerns. It's impossible to do so without knowing what they are, specifically. I also accept that you will have difficulty with my answer. That's OK. You lack context, and that doesn't come quickly or easily.
That line was added by a bot, so who knows where it was pulled from or who wrote it?
I don't know the truth of the matter, but of course the "authorities" are going to make that accusation if they want to punish a medical research lab. It's the "crime" that best fits the "perp". Having additional perspective is fine, but it's no more definitive than his statement at the moment.
And no, I'm not going to be gone for a few weeks and tolerate abuse while I reread it. That would be unreasonable.
"Stand here and count to a thousand while I throw rocks at you. Hey wait, you can't move yet! You haven't counted to a thousand!"
Just how stupid do you think I am? Wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that until after you have read the Bible front to back (starting now). See you in a couple of days!
Easy there. Now... who took your lithium away, and would they please give it back?
Very evil things have been done in the name of religion (including Christianity) but very evil things have also been done in the name of atheism. It would be just as easy for me to accuse you of genocidal atrocities, but that would be absurd.
To compound this, there were no "sons of Adam" to act as witnesses to the creation. Where did that knowledge come from?
If you believe tradition, the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses... But he didn't live through Genesis. How did he come to all that knowledge? He could have abridged other writings, but that still doesn't explain the account of the creation. The explanation that makes the most sense? He (or someone else) was told by God or by an angelic messenger. Therein lies the rub.
God has a habit of being intentionally obtuse at times. Every time someone receives a vision in their dreams, and every time a parable is told, there is someone present who will understand the symbolism. Yet most of the time, the message will go right over everyone else's head. One of the great problems with interpreting the Bible has to do with which passages are meant literally, and which are figurative. Most of the time, it's rather obvious, but there's always someone who will get it wrong. With Genesis, it's actually quite hard.
The question isn't: is the creation account symbolic? The question is: How much of the creation account is symbolic, and of what?
(Those who believe every word of the Bible is literal, really should reread the parables of Christ and the dreams interpreted by Daniel. Then they can try to explain why 100% of the other dreams and sayings recorded are all literal.)
My God isn't a murderous psychopath instituting insane and arbitrary laws and demanding adoration under threat of violence.
Happy now?
(And yes, there does seem to be a bizarre radical flavor of Christianity forming in the Republican party like a cancer in response to certain liberal atheist agendas. This isn't to say that Christians nor republicans nor most liberals are evil.)
Yes, in the US, but only among blacks... The reason is slavery.
Uh, yeah. And? Were you expounding for the general reader, or did you think I missed that somehow?
To reiterate: "the derogatory "boy" has a racial tone to it, and should be avoided unless you know for sure you're not addressing someone of color."
Of course they're going to take it as an insult, and I, for one, can't blame them for being offended.
It retained it's negative connotation through out segregation, and into simmering racial tensions. The fact remains that the wounds will not fully heal until they can put such things behind them. There are many different life circumstances in the nation, but most people have not been exposed to sufficient overt racism to justify the reaction. In many contexts, it elicits a meaningless tantrum. It's like a school child being called poo-poo-head.
Blame them? No, I don't blame them. That meaning has great symbolic sticking power. Still, recovery from racism must happen from both sides. That's a hard lesson that most people don't want to hear.
Absolutely. But bear in mind that sometimes you'll be ignored unless you start someone else's job for them. If you hand them a stack of half-true claims, sometimes it will induce them to go look up facts. (or it could just make them mad, but they presumably weren't doing their jobs to begin with)
On another note: the derogatory "boy" has a racial tone to it, and should be avoided unless you know for sure you're not addressing someone of color. I really wish our language wasn't being co-opted by innuendo (race, sexuality, nationality, politics, etc). It's getting really hard to say anything without being called a bigot by some victim-hood bloc or other.
Open your eyes. We are still suffering from the stupidity and greed of both parties.
(They're in nearly equal proportion. People can disagree about which is worse, but it's comparing landfills to sewage treatment; neither odor is agreeable.)
Has anyone here actually compared Boundless' offerings with the recommended texbooks? I know that 'dinosaur traditional publishers attempt to squash plucky upstart', but it may be that anyone dispassionate looking at the results would say 'hey thats an obvious rip-pff'. I have no idea - I haven't seen the output.
Neither have I. But the article (yes, I read it) states that they use open content illustrations that intentionally mimic the originals. It sounds like they went at a little overboard, at least once. (hopefully they didn't go way overboard, and hopefully it's isolated.)
That's my understanding (IANAL). Do note, however, that any inclusion of someone else's analysis usually requires you to cite their work (even if you don't use any direct quotations).
For those who think he might have a point, look up Duverger's law. We have a two party system due to the math of our election system, not because we fail to exercise free will. It's math, not principle that is at issue.
That's not even hyperbole, just a basic opinion on when "personhood" begins that differs from the majority opinion. If you share that opinion, it would be hard not to be appalled by the rampant infanticide.
It's sad that geeks are, on the whole, so quick to just dismiss someone with differing values. When someone comes to a very diferent conclusion, we shouldn't be so quick to assume they're stupid, instead ask whther they're starting from different assumptions (certainly 90% of design arguments at work could be avoided by this practice).
*Sigh*
Ok, I'll bite. What "different assumptions" lead to the conclusion that abortion isn't rampant infanticide?
The only two I can find are:
"I want sex without consequences."
"This piece of tissue isn't cute yet, so I don't need to formally recognize it as human."
The former is part of our zeitgiest. That doesn't make it sound reasoning*, but it is conceivably worth addressing. The latter is just an ugly excuse driven by the former. We really could just as easily and capriciously set the age to six months, or potty training.
For the record, the general public is stupid, and the most vocal proponents of abortion are after political power or money. That's not to say that everyone who believes in abortion is stupid, but it's really hard to wrap my mind around. I have not come across a logically sound rationale in favor of it. (at least one that isn't easily applied to genocide or some types of serial murder)
*(I'm NOT addressing sin here. That's a whole different topic.)
That sheltered upbringing also raises kids that have never failed and were always told that their half assed best attempt regardless if it really was their best or not was good enough and they were rewarded for it. This is why "bullies" are becoming such a big problem in recent years. Kids can't handle some rejection, a few emotional blows and some failures...
I realize I'm responding to AC, but this is simply not true. We have a bullying problem today because teachers are unwilling (or not permitted) to correct the issue. There have always been sheltered kids. That isn't what changed.
Now I'm not advocating corporal punishment in schools. I am advocating that teachers not be trained to turn a blind eye.
(Yes, we've always had bullying. The bullies haven't changed, we've just become too limp-wristed to teach them proper socialization.)
Slashdot Mirror
"Health Theater". I like it. I'm going to remember that.
...or it could be every problem is a nail...
I think there's an element of that. It's more likely that there's an unconscious bias in play somewhere. It's the same reason why double-blind studies are so important in research. Single blind is sufficient to counter the placebo effect, but double blind is mandatory to prevent physician bias. Unfortunately, double blind doesn't work well for medical diagnosis!
On the other hand, price for drugs drop when demand increases...
Is this satire? That only applies once a drug has gone generic (and only sometimes, at that). If they can make a bigger profit selling at a higher price point, they will. It may be extortion, but it's business.
There are unpatented drugs, with generics, that are only by prescription. You can always ask, but the doctor can always tell you it's impossible. Of course, even generic prescriptions tend to be cheaper. Usually you can work with the pharmacist to get a generic. Once you have the brand-name prescription, the doctor no longer needs to be involved at all.
Parent may be AC, but he's 100% right. I've heard of nurse practitioners who are better than the doctors they work with. This isn't to say that they're qualified to do everything that a doctor can, but they are qualified to take most of the workload that we give doctors. And yes, they can frequently diagnose on their own and write prescriptions (or ask for consultation when they can't).
And then you have the other side of the coin, where not enough testing is done, and retesting must be ordered. Often, this means redoing previous tests to give relevant context to the new tests. It would be cheapest to order the right amount of tests the first time.
All this talk about unnecessary testing, while important, has some doctors a bit gun-shy. This too, is bad, and leads to more expensive care.
(I'm not knocking your comment. You're right. You just brought up the context, and I'm playing off it.)
The American education system itself isn't that bad. It's not the best, but it's not the worst, either. The main problem is the people.
Neither is it homogeneous. There are places where it's pretty bad. Very generally speaking, where society is weakest, so are the schools.
A large portion of Americans are religious to the point where they refuse to acknowledge reality.
Oh, really. I think that portion is smaller than you're willing to accept. A larger portion of Americans are politicized to the point where they refuse to acknowledge reality. This is doubly true when religion is being talked about (from EITHER side of the aisle).
Even when it's readily available and of a high quality, these people will shun any education that may remotely challenge their religious beliefs in one way or another.
Happens from time to time, but there really isn't that much friction between science and religion. We're talking about evolution, geologic time, and maybe abortion (plus a few odds and ends). That leaves a lot of ground uncovered.
They steer clear away from any sort of science, and many of them even distrust mathematics.
Oh, really? That's a new one. I don't doubt the possibility, but I've never run across it. You're really speaking about a niche group now.
This distrust and outright hatred of science and math doesn't leave them very many useful fields to study.
I guess it wouldn't. Who are we talking about again that fits this bill? I've never met them.
There's another large portion of Americans who aspire to be nothing more than "gangstas".
This is true, and unfortunate. But our media is willing to market to (and glorify) the gangsta' culture. It's hard to fight that while retaining free-speech (a must).
Even when involving a curriculum developed by non-whites and taught by non-whites, these people still insist on rejecting "the white man's education".
There are some of those. I generally don't believe this excuse. The issue is cultural, and usually boils down to poor school experience with limited home support. But if they can blame it on the white man, many of them will. It's really sad to see racism start off this way, but it happens.
Finally, there is the whole "hipster" phenomenon. These are adults who are mentally still children, usually due to growing up in a household where everything was provided to them.
That's half the picture. It's what wasn't provided them which is truly problematic. They aren't (weren't) provided with a useful view of society. All they experienced were school and leisure home life. Nothing was expected of them, but neither were they permitted to show initiative, to wander or experiment. All they were permitted to play with were video games.
...or by studying a field that offers absolutely no job prospects and no real-world value.
If you were following your heart, and had absolutely no idea what the job market was like, what field would you choose? Again, I blame school systems and parents. Frequently, the things taught are worthless, and the things of value are omitted.
It was one thing when there was a small portion of Americans who would embrace ignorance. There have always been people like that, and nothing can be done for them. But these days, we're talking about 60% or more of Americans who willfully and voluntarily reject a useful education. That's a recipe for disaster.
Rejecting education today has very little to do with embracing ignorance. It's mostly about sour grapes. There is a presupposition that it's out of reach, so why try?
Of course, then there are those of us who choose to believe in both science and religion. Crazy talk, yes, I know.
The fact of the matter is, there is a lot of stuff we simply don't know. A hundred years ago, current tech would have been considered downright fanciful. It really isn't a big leap to assume an omniscient deity would be able to make better use of fundamental laws of reality (physics, etc) far better than we're ready to accept.
This doesn't preclude our own bumbling attempts to understand the universe, along with all the wonderful things science and education bring. I, for one, refuse the false dichotomy.
You'd be referring to passages in the Old Testament (and if you're clever, misquoted passages from the New).
I really don't think you have any idea what the Middle Eastern cultures were like back then. They've actually gotten much better, despite some of them still living in the pre-medieval ages. God doesn't change, but what people need changes. In Moses' day, they were actually incapable (as a people) of learning the gospel principles as taught by Christ. Instead, they were given laws to prepare them as a people to eventually reach that point.
You're also struggling with the concept of immortality of the soul, and the ability of God to judge fairly and justly. The fact of the matter is, things in this life cannot be fair and just. It's part of the purpose of this life, to learn just how bad things can be in an unjust society. If we don't learn this, we won't be prepared for eternity. We won't be willing or capable of obeying reasonable laws forming a just society. (This isn't to say that we shouldn't try. I think that's also important to the learning process: learning how something works by reinventing it. Math teachers like this technique.)
I know I didn't properly address your concerns. It's impossible to do so without knowing what they are, specifically. I also accept that you will have difficulty with my answer. That's OK. You lack context, and that doesn't come quickly or easily.
That line was added by a bot, so who knows where it was pulled from or who wrote it?
I don't know the truth of the matter, but of course the "authorities" are going to make that accusation if they want to punish a medical research lab. It's the "crime" that best fits the "perp". Having additional perspective is fine, but it's no more definitive than his statement at the moment.
I have.
And no, I'm not going to be gone for a few weeks and tolerate abuse while I reread it. That would be unreasonable.
"Stand here and count to a thousand while I throw rocks at you. Hey wait, you can't move yet! You haven't counted to a thousand!"
Just how stupid do you think I am? Wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that until after you have read the Bible front to back (starting now). See you in a couple of days!
???
Easy there. Now... who took your lithium away, and would they please give it back?
Very evil things have been done in the name of religion (including Christianity) but very evil things have also been done in the name of atheism. It would be just as easy for me to accuse you of genocidal atrocities, but that would be absurd.
Chill. It will help your blood pressure.
To compound this, there were no "sons of Adam" to act as witnesses to the creation. Where did that knowledge come from?
If you believe tradition, the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses... But he didn't live through Genesis. How did he come to all that knowledge? He could have abridged other writings, but that still doesn't explain the account of the creation. The explanation that makes the most sense? He (or someone else) was told by God or by an angelic messenger. Therein lies the rub.
God has a habit of being intentionally obtuse at times. Every time someone receives a vision in their dreams, and every time a parable is told, there is someone present who will understand the symbolism. Yet most of the time, the message will go right over everyone else's head. One of the great problems with interpreting the Bible has to do with which passages are meant literally, and which are figurative. Most of the time, it's rather obvious, but there's always someone who will get it wrong. With Genesis, it's actually quite hard.
The question isn't: is the creation account symbolic? The question is: How much of the creation account is symbolic, and of what?
(Those who believe every word of the Bible is literal, really should reread the parables of Christ and the dreams interpreted by Daniel. Then they can try to explain why 100% of the other dreams and sayings recorded are all literal.)
My God isn't a murderous psychopath instituting insane and arbitrary laws and demanding adoration under threat of violence.
Happy now?
(And yes, there does seem to be a bizarre radical flavor of Christianity forming in the Republican party like a cancer in response to certain liberal atheist agendas. This isn't to say that Christians nor republicans nor most liberals are evil.)
While I don't subscribe to a celibate church, RTCB might be a bit closer.
Well, in that case it seems I overreacted. Glad you've got your head on straight. Not everyone can wrap their minds around the idea.
Yes, in the US, but only among blacks... The reason is slavery.
Uh, yeah. And? Were you expounding for the general reader, or did you think I missed that somehow?
To reiterate: "the derogatory "boy" has a racial tone to it, and should be avoided unless you know for sure you're not addressing someone of color."
Of course they're going to take it as an insult, and I, for one, can't blame them for being offended.
It retained it's negative connotation through out segregation, and into simmering racial tensions. The fact remains that the wounds will not fully heal until they can put such things behind them. There are many different life circumstances in the nation, but most people have not been exposed to sufficient overt racism to justify the reaction. In many contexts, it elicits a meaningless tantrum. It's like a school child being called poo-poo-head.
Blame them? No, I don't blame them. That meaning has great symbolic sticking power. Still, recovery from racism must happen from both sides. That's a hard lesson that most people don't want to hear.
Absolutely. But bear in mind that sometimes you'll be ignored unless you start someone else's job for them. If you hand them a stack of half-true claims, sometimes it will induce them to go look up facts. (or it could just make them mad, but they presumably weren't doing their jobs to begin with)
On another note: the derogatory "boy" has a racial tone to it, and should be avoided unless you know for sure you're not addressing someone of color. I really wish our language wasn't being co-opted by innuendo (race, sexuality, nationality, politics, etc). It's getting really hard to say anything without being called a bigot by some victim-hood bloc or other.
Open your eyes. We are still suffering from the stupidity and greed of both parties.
(They're in nearly equal proportion. People can disagree about which is worse, but it's comparing landfills to sewage treatment; neither odor is agreeable.)
Relax. He's no longer president. You can now move on with your life.
Has anyone here actually compared Boundless' offerings with the recommended texbooks? I know that 'dinosaur traditional publishers attempt to squash plucky upstart', but it may be that anyone dispassionate looking at the results would say 'hey thats an obvious rip-pff'. I have no idea - I haven't seen the output.
Neither have I. But the article (yes, I read it) states that they use open content illustrations that intentionally mimic the originals. It sounds like they went at a little overboard, at least once. (hopefully they didn't go way overboard, and hopefully it's isolated.)
That's my understanding (IANAL). Do note, however, that any inclusion of someone else's analysis usually requires you to cite their work (even if you don't use any direct quotations).
Parent is AC troll.
For those who think he might have a point, look up Duverger's law. We have a two party system due to the math of our election system, not because we fail to exercise free will. It's math, not principle that is at issue.
That's not even hyperbole, just a basic opinion on when "personhood" begins that differs from the majority opinion. If you share that opinion, it would be hard not to be appalled by the rampant infanticide.
It's sad that geeks are, on the whole, so quick to just dismiss someone with differing values. When someone comes to a very diferent conclusion, we shouldn't be so quick to assume they're stupid, instead ask whther they're starting from different assumptions (certainly 90% of design arguments at work could be avoided by this practice).
*Sigh*
Ok, I'll bite. What "different assumptions" lead to the conclusion that abortion isn't rampant infanticide?
The only two I can find are:
"I want sex without consequences."
"This piece of tissue isn't cute yet, so I don't need to formally recognize it as human."
The former is part of our zeitgiest. That doesn't make it sound reasoning*, but it is conceivably worth addressing. The latter is just an ugly excuse driven by the former. We really could just as easily and capriciously set the age to six months, or potty training.
For the record, the general public is stupid, and the most vocal proponents of abortion are after political power or money. That's not to say that everyone who believes in abortion is stupid, but it's really hard to wrap my mind around. I have not come across a logically sound rationale in favor of it. (at least one that isn't easily applied to genocide or some types of serial murder)
*(I'm NOT addressing sin here. That's a whole different topic.)
Everybody is still innocent until proven guilty, but what they do to innocent people these days is hard to fathom.
Ack. No. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"Convicted" and "guilty" can be very different things. People who commit crimes are guilty, and people who are convicted are "found to be guilty".
I know. It's subtle, but it's important. (And I wish that more lawyers and judges understood this.)
That sheltered upbringing also raises kids that have never failed and were always told that their half assed best attempt regardless if it really was their best or not was good enough and they were rewarded for it. This is why "bullies" are becoming such a big problem in recent years. Kids can't handle some rejection, a few emotional blows and some failures...
I realize I'm responding to AC, but this is simply not true. We have a bullying problem today because teachers are unwilling (or not permitted) to correct the issue. There have always been sheltered kids. That isn't what changed.
Now I'm not advocating corporal punishment in schools. I am advocating that teachers not be trained to turn a blind eye.
(Yes, we've always had bullying. The bullies haven't changed, we've just become too limp-wristed to teach them proper socialization.)