You missed something when you dismissed that analogy. Both of the survey questions were also about historical events, and not directly about how the world works today. Scientific literacy is a measure of knowing about, and understanding scientific theory. Belief has no part of any sane definition of scientific literacy. If this were not the case then science would be just another hokey religion.
(warning, this next sentence is a bit harsh) And if you keep insisting otherwise, guess what hokey religion you belong too?
"No, I think it's a reasonable line of thought to suggest that sex ed will raise awareness about sexual intercourse, lead to increased peer pressure ("everyone's doing it -- why do you think they taught us how to use a rubber?"), and increased numbers of kids will have sex before they're emotionally ready for it."
The trouble with that statement is that it is wrong. We have studied this issue, and sex ed really does not have much if any effect on how often kids have sex. IIRC the numbers actually went down a bit. Not up.
What you propose here is as dangerous as the problem it tries to cure.
If this went into effect, some evil corporation would try to use this law to eliminate a competitor by framing them for some crime and getting them liquidated.
On the other hand, you are on the right track in your thinking. Corporate law, as currently implemented, is the main cause of a whole bunch of problems. Including the one being discussed here. Think like a lawyer version of a network or sys. admin for a moment and answer this question: What security measures would you implement to prevent 'hacking' of a corporate death penalty for nefarious purposes?
You need to learn the definitions of the words active, proactive and reactive. The actions of the US that you are describing are active - by definition - they are actions. To be 'active' is to be taking actions.
The words proactive and reactive refer to the reasons for taking actions, NOT whether or not there are actions being taken. They say nothing about whether or not there is activity.
Proactive would be 'China may in the future want to attack our power grid, what should we do about that?' Reactive is 'Oh noes, a CHINESE has noticed that our power grid sucks, NOW what do we do?' One anticipates possible trouble, and takes actions in response. The other waits until after something happens. Reactive seems a very good way to describe most political crap - including the US today. All of those very intrusive US actions that you just described is in no way incompatible with a very reactive government.
So that's what the 2 billion offer was for. The good credit rating. Use it to borrow several billion, Pay yourself the borrowed money in consulting fees, and sell the now inches from bankruptcy company to clueless shareholders in an IPO.
The idea that the Amish don't get vaccinated and that autism is unknown among them is due to a reporter (not researcher, doctor etc, just a reporter!!!) Dan Olmsted.
You don't understand addiction very well at all. Banning drugs increases their addictive power significantly. This is established psychology. It also greatly increases the harm from drugs - they cost tons more, financially ruining the addicts, as well as discouraging them from treatment.
You are worried about a government promoting drugs? well, that would be bad. That would about double the number of addicts. Yes, only double. Most users of hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.) never become addicts. Basically there is a huge chunk of the population that is immune to addiction to most drugs. Why? They don't need what the drug provides. I'll use one of the most addictive substances known as an example.
People who try to quit smoking have about a 5% chance of succeeding cold turkey. That goes up to 15% with nicotine patches/gum. With an antidepressant? 30%.
Most addicts are depressed, or have mental illness, or too much stress, etc. This is what makes them vulnerable to 'self-medicate' to fix their troubles. Since drugs do alter the reward/pleasure centers in ways similar to what the normal mind naturally does, it does temporarily 'fix' the problem. Only it isn't permanent, it usually makes the mind even more off-balance once the drug wears off, -> classic addiction symptoms. However if the mind is already getting what it needs, then the motivation to take more isn't strong enough to cause addiction. It does a 'wow that was quite a trip' and goes on with it's life as normal. Just the way most adults who drink alcohol do.
It should be obvious to anyone that drugs aren't a serious threat to mankind. Most of them have been around for 1000's of years, and they haven't been banned until very recently. Unfortunately logic and knowledge aren't most people's strong points. What we get instead is common 'sense' like yours. (ie. whatever sense people do have in common...)
tl;dr version: Drugs are NOT the 'most successful destroyer of freedom', and banning them only makes them more successful destroyers of freedom. both for the addicts, and everyone else.
What you learned is even more wrong than the summary, which is (as usual) lousy. RTFA for the truth.
This is old news, and just incase you haven't read any of the comments either, this is still happening. Industrial ethanol is still mandated to have poisons added. Taxes are the excuse today - and since legal booze exists, fewer people die from it. I learned about this years ago when I read about people making their own ethanol fuel for their car.
There may well be states somewhere that were 1/2 farmland at one point, but Utah and Wyoming aren't it. It would be impossible to farm 1/2 of Utah. You can't farm this And, while the views aren't as spectacular through the whole state, more than half the state is at least that dry. Oh, and you can't farm the side of a mountain either, and we have quite a few of those here too. Don't forget the salt flats those take up more land than the great salt lake - which you can't farm either.
I am not as familiar with Wyoming, but google maps shows an awful lot of brown...
Nonsense. They don't really give a damn about our freedoms. They want the US a)out of Muslim nations, and b)to stop helping Israel. The idea that they hate us for our freedoms is mostly crap. They do hate us for being infidels, part of that is the fact that we don't enforce sharia law, so in a roundabout way they are against our freedoms, but not really.
I am not in finance in any way - but I have been following financial and economic news fairly closely for a couple years now. Nice to see that I am not the only one with that opinion of the WSJ. A pity too, 'cause I tend to lean on the conservative side in financial matters...
"Everyone is experiencing massive cost inflation, and it's precisely because the end-customers are insulated from the cost of their own health care decisions. All patients want the most effective test/treatment available, regardless of whether it's only 10% better than another option that costs a third as much. Providers, for their part, are both morally and financially motivated to go for the better and more expensive approach. Morally because it's the best treatment for the patient and financially for obvious reasons. The only one who has any incentive to keep costs down is the insurance company. And if they're actually competing for customers, then they have a counter-incentive to keep the patient happy, which means ever-increasing costs. "
Well said. Any health reform that does not change this won't contain costs. What you are wrong about is the idea that a one-payer system can't change this. It may not - I can think of several plausible national health care systems that wouldn't - but some in Europe do. That said, I am not in favor of a national health care system.
A systen where deductibles were $10,000 minimum with 50-90% of costs (depending on price etc) were covered after that, would do wonders for keeping costs down and improving medical tech (that last bit national health care tends to be rather poor at)
According to the article (which I haven't read yet BTW) all those/8's listed total what, 18 months worth of addresses? And the legal battles to get them will take how long?
"Antibiotics don't prevent organ rejection, that would be immunosuppressant drugs."
True enough. but I bet immunosuppressant drugs require antibiotics. OP is wrong about the reason, but I think not the fact that organ transplants need antibiotics.
Ok. It depends on the nature of the thing you are educating them on. Reading - that works quite well. Abstinence for teens, not so well. If general education at the masses never worked, then most people would not be able to read, or ride a bike. On the other hand, there there are lots of 'education programs' that fail miserably. Evolutionary biology in high school for example. So saying that general education always works is also stupid. It is the nature of the thing that matters.
What evidence/reasoning do you have that training for cellphone use/general distractions while driving won't work? I honestly don't know one way or the other. And I'll bet that there are some people that it won't work for, and some it will. What do you think is the ratio? And why?
And just how many of those people in the plane have gone through even basic pilot training? - probably also just those two in the cockpit.
I imagine a big part of the reason that IFR pilots are rare is that IFR pilot training is also rare, and much less because IFR piloting is hard. Try reading up a bit about WWII and how many pilots were trained from the general population. Pay attention to the failure rates too. That at least would be a much better comparison than your 747...
"This, by any stretch, would never be considered a chat room. This is not a conversation."
Ummm, Come again? The only way that this wouldn't be considered a conversation is if a conversation had to be carried on using speech, not typing or other forms of communication. I can't imagine that is what the prosecutor in this case had in mind. Slashdot, message boards, forums and the like are conversations - don't delude yourself in a misguided attempt to defend your precious preference for canadian laws, or justify your disdain for US ones. Even if that preference or disdain are justified.
I don't actually think that the law will be applied in this manner - at least in general. That hardly justifies this absurd interpretation of it.
I reply to posts on the internet - just like this one.
Occasionally I mention movies and drugs in those posts, just like in this one.
I have no way on knowing if a post is by a minor or not - for example, are you a minor? How could I tell?
In fact, there is only one thing that makes me sure that making this post isn't a crime under this law - I'm not in Canada. Basically, this law makes it a potential crime for Canadian adults to be anything but assholes on the internet. Anything nice could be 'grooming'.
Slashdot Mirror
(warning, this next sentence is a bit harsh) And if you keep insisting otherwise, guess what hokey religion you belong too?
T
The trouble with that statement is that it is wrong. We have studied this issue, and sex ed really does not have much if any effect on how often kids have sex. IIRC the numbers actually went down a bit. Not up.
T
If this went into effect, some evil corporation would try to use this law to eliminate a competitor by framing them for some crime and getting them liquidated.
On the other hand, you are on the right track in your thinking. Corporate law, as currently implemented, is the main cause of a whole bunch of problems. Including the one being discussed here. Think like a lawyer version of a network or sys. admin for a moment and answer this question: What security measures would you implement to prevent 'hacking' of a corporate death penalty for nefarious purposes?
T
T
The words proactive and reactive refer to the reasons for taking actions, NOT whether or not there are actions being taken. They say nothing about whether or not there is activity.
Proactive would be 'China may in the future want to attack our power grid, what should we do about that?' Reactive is 'Oh noes, a CHINESE has noticed that our power grid sucks, NOW what do we do?' One anticipates possible trouble, and takes actions in response. The other waits until after something happens. Reactive seems a very good way to describe most political crap - including the US today. All of those very intrusive US actions that you just described is in no way incompatible with a very reactive government.
T
Easy money.
T
T
Apparently both 'facts' are incorrect.
T
Your comparison is misleading. Get a better one.
T
You are worried about a government promoting drugs? well, that would be bad. That would about double the number of addicts. Yes, only double. Most users of hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.) never become addicts. Basically there is a huge chunk of the population that is immune to addiction to most drugs. Why? They don't need what the drug provides. I'll use one of the most addictive substances known as an example.
People who try to quit smoking have about a 5% chance of succeeding cold turkey. That goes up to 15% with nicotine patches/gum. With an antidepressant? 30%.
Most addicts are depressed, or have mental illness, or too much stress, etc. This is what makes them vulnerable to 'self-medicate' to fix their troubles. Since drugs do alter the reward/pleasure centers in ways similar to what the normal mind naturally does, it does temporarily 'fix' the problem. Only it isn't permanent, it usually makes the mind even more off-balance once the drug wears off, -> classic addiction symptoms. However if the mind is already getting what it needs, then the motivation to take more isn't strong enough to cause addiction. It does a 'wow that was quite a trip' and goes on with it's life as normal. Just the way most adults who drink alcohol do.
It should be obvious to anyone that drugs aren't a serious threat to mankind. Most of them have been around for 1000's of years, and they haven't been banned until very recently. Unfortunately logic and knowledge aren't most people's strong points. What we get instead is common 'sense' like yours. (ie. whatever sense people do have in common...)
tl;dr version: Drugs are NOT the 'most successful destroyer of freedom', and banning them only makes them more successful destroyers of freedom. both for the addicts, and everyone else.
T
This is old news, and just incase you haven't read any of the comments either, this is still happening. Industrial ethanol is still mandated to have poisons added. Taxes are the excuse today - and since legal booze exists, fewer people die from it. I learned about this years ago when I read about people making their own ethanol fuel for their car.
T
I am not as familiar with Wyoming, but google maps shows an awful lot of brown...
T
(just reminding you of a little multibillion dollar item you missed...)
T
T
T
T
Well said. Any health reform that does not change this won't contain costs. What you are wrong about is the idea that a one-payer system can't change this. It may not - I can think of several plausible national health care systems that wouldn't - but some in Europe do. That said, I am not in favor of a national health care system.
A systen where deductibles were $10,000 minimum with 50-90% of costs (depending on price etc) were covered after that, would do wonders for keeping costs down and improving medical tech (that last bit national health care tends to be rather poor at)
T
T
T
True enough. but I bet immunosuppressant drugs require antibiotics. OP is wrong about the reason, but I think not the fact that organ transplants need antibiotics.
T
Kids can, and will teach themselves given the chance.
another link
(you may want to skip about 5 minutes into the video. The comments are good too.)
T
Ok. It depends on the nature of the thing you are educating them on. Reading - that works quite well. Abstinence for teens, not so well. If general education at the masses never worked, then most people would not be able to read, or ride a bike. On the other hand, there there are lots of 'education programs' that fail miserably. Evolutionary biology in high school for example. So saying that general education always works is also stupid. It is the nature of the thing that matters.
What evidence/reasoning do you have that training for cellphone use/general distractions while driving won't work? I honestly don't know one way or the other. And I'll bet that there are some people that it won't work for, and some it will. What do you think is the ratio? And why?
T
And just how many of those people in the plane have gone through even basic pilot training? - probably also just those two in the cockpit.
I imagine a big part of the reason that IFR pilots are rare is that IFR pilot training is also rare, and much less because IFR piloting is hard. Try reading up a bit about WWII and how many pilots were trained from the general population. Pay attention to the failure rates too. That at least would be a much better comparison than your 747...
T
Ummm, Come again? The only way that this wouldn't be considered a conversation is if a conversation had to be carried on using speech, not typing or other forms of communication. I can't imagine that is what the prosecutor in this case had in mind. Slashdot, message boards, forums and the like are conversations - don't delude yourself in a misguided attempt to defend your precious preference for canadian laws, or justify your disdain for US ones. Even if that preference or disdain are justified.
I don't actually think that the law will be applied in this manner - at least in general. That hardly justifies this absurd interpretation of it.
T
I reply to posts on the internet - just like this one.
Occasionally I mention movies and drugs in those posts, just like in this one.
I have no way on knowing if a post is by a minor or not - for example, are you a minor? How could I tell?
In fact, there is only one thing that makes me sure that making this post isn't a crime under this law - I'm not in Canada. Basically, this law makes it a potential crime for Canadian adults to be anything but assholes on the internet. Anything nice could be 'grooming'.
T