First, we're going to get the insurance companies' profits and doctor's salaries reigned in. Then we are going to vote out the dems. THEN we are going to make sure the repubs get tort reform in place. It's all good...
Re:Taking care of people is not wrong
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
I would argue that, if we are going to point guns, point it at the people unwilling to help out their fellow man, as opposed to pointing it at those with less fortune. Those less fortunate have no choice. Why is the argument always about the fortunate people of this world and their choice to do something or not...
Challenging status-quo thinking has always met with resistance. It is refreshing that the university is embracing a non-traditional approach to thinking about education, and the opportunities for education that exist in the current media children and students are actively embracing.
I passed by this at first, not wanting to involve myself in the stupidity debate...
but my GAWD man... let us all completely de-humanize everything why don't we? How about child labor? How about unfair labor practices? People like you, let's call you unapologetic capitalists, have an uncanny ability to completely remove the human equation from the argument.
Hell... I can round up a bunch of 10 year old kids, chain them to a factory floor, and churn out product cheaper than anyone. Do you recognize the logical flaw?
Now, I do agree that current immigration law is absurd. But the problem is really not here, but there. Why are people coming here from these places? Because their governments have failed to protect them from people.. just.. like... you!
If humans are to be considered "natural" or not really is not the issue, but to say that "It is the nature of life to use all resources to the maximum extent possible" precludes rationalization, which humans supposedly have in abundance.
If a human is natural, then by extension so is rationalization. Is that not correct?
So the flaw in your argument could be that rationalization needs to be applied as a natural phenomenon regarding resource utilization.
And, armed with all this information you have what exactly?
A means for fiery debate to continue over decades-old topics with still no consensus, no conformist view?
Don't get me wrong... I believe history and historical perspective have a place. It's just that your argument does not carry the water for this debate.
And I have a hard time rationalizing why on earth anyone 50 years from now, doing any real, substantive work, would care what/. looked like on July 15th, 2009.
I'm sorry, I realize our tendency is to laugh off such stuff...
But really... if we are willing to allow people to be arrested and thrown in jail for possession of cartoons, how far away is it that the act of just writing a comment could get someone in trouble?
60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet. Many had a newspaper and perhaps a radio. Neither of which offered the volume of content available to individuals today.
I think the OP missed the point. It's not the availability of news that is the problem, nor is it the filtering to tastes, it's a combination of apathy, time, and format.
Voters just do not feel connected to their government anymore, and many politicians have a hard time connecting with voters. Reporters have a 30 second spot on which to discuss a topic - plenty of time I'm sure to explore anything complex. The Internet offers the ability to more closely follow a given subject, but time pushes back as to what extent the individual can digest information in volume.
What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another, posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject, without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.
I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society, where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on/. and bulletin boards, as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion. People are not invested in the dialogue, therefore their knowledge suffers as does the content of the conversation.
Something is being lost when we are not held accountable for our words, and not expecting our words to count. Have you ever watched a politician attend / speak at a town hall meeting? They struggle through with their sound bites, because the format forces a more thorough dialogue of the subject matter.
The problem is simple. Newspapers get updated ?daily? at most?
We don't live in that world anymore. Newspapers are going to die as the aging population who still hold onto them pass on.
This is true of ANY media source.
When was the last time you read an encyclopedia? Wikipedia anyone? Why is that? Could it be that WP is actually updated and maintained on a regular basis? That the relevance of the material is pertinent to its readership... right NOW? Imagine opening a 6-month old encyclopedia and looking up Haiti. No links, no pertinent news, nothing. Just old news.
Books... well, we'll have the classics. But do you really see the book trend continuing? Take college for an example. Right now, you buy an accounting book, published in 2008, 2009, or 2010... You attend class, and everyone in that class has the same book, by the same author. But there are 400 other books on Accounting out there. Some might have better content on a given subject than the author of your chosen book does. What then? Buy two books? No. The answer is in plain sight. The "Accounting Wiki" or something similar, where all these authors contribute to the depth/breadth of it. We're not there yet because, well, we're just not there yet. But it IS coming.
People really need to get their heads around this and contemplate the sheer magnitude of change this world is facing.
Now I'm not saying that "stories" are going to die, or that fiction / non-fiction, etc... will die, but I do believe the distribution of these stories is changing and will continue to change until books have become obsolete. Have you ever read a good book of fiction? What if the author could offer a multitude of variations of their works? Children's version, adult version, alternate ending... the opportunities are truly limitless, once you get past the notion of a "forever set in stone" story.
Bottom Line: ========== News happens every second. Information changes more frequently than the archaic information distribution methods are able to keep up with. We live in a 1-second world now. If your site/publication/document/application cannot update itself at high interval, or be updated at high interval, that site/publication/document/application is to soon be as extinct as a dinosaur.
Those that can... they will succeed. Those that can't... well...
I really think that the most fundamental problem these industries are facing right now is a lack of imagination on what they can really do/provide/offer.
Before you get this new law passed you'll need to bribe each of the damned legislature into signing on. That will result in each exempting themselves, or watering down this law so severely as to no longer allow it to accomplish its original goal(s).
Slashdot Mirror
First, we're going to get the insurance companies' profits and doctor's salaries reigned in. Then we are going to vote out the dems. THEN we are going to make sure the repubs get tort reform in place. It's all good...
I would argue that, if we are going to point guns, point it at the people unwilling to help out their fellow man, as opposed to pointing it at those with less fortune. Those less fortunate have no choice. Why is the argument always about the fortunate people of this world and their choice to do something or not...
You could argue that those people who feel "entitled" to earn money to another persons detriment are the supposed "Entitlement Generation".
Every damn time I hear someone slander a concept such as universal health care as an "Entitlement", I want grab a bat and hit some balls...
We are, after all, still all human here right?
Sounds like we can all expect Jar Jar to make an appearance.
Challenging status-quo thinking has always met with resistance. It is refreshing that the university is embracing a non-traditional approach to thinking about education, and the opportunities for education that exist in the current media children and students are actively embracing.
I passed by this at first, not wanting to involve myself in the stupidity debate...
but my GAWD man... let us all completely de-humanize everything why don't we? How about child labor? How about unfair labor practices? People like you, let's call you unapologetic capitalists, have an uncanny ability to completely remove the human equation from the argument.
Hell... I can round up a bunch of 10 year old kids, chain them to a factory floor, and churn out product cheaper than anyone. Do you recognize the logical flaw?
Now, I do agree that current immigration law is absurd. But the problem is really not here, but there. Why are people coming here from these places? Because their governments have failed to protect them from people.. just.. like... you!
Well how could it be? Sex in wedlock is non-existent!
If humans are to be considered "natural" or not really is not the issue, but to say that "It is the nature of life to use all resources to the maximum extent possible" precludes rationalization, which humans supposedly have in abundance.
If a human is natural, then by extension so is rationalization. Is that not correct?
So the flaw in your argument could be that rationalization needs to be applied as a natural phenomenon regarding resource utilization.
"No disrespect to Kundra, but I don't think he's the right guy to oversee it."
Perhaps through 'lessons learned', Kundra could be just the person to do it right this time?
Can you imagine what (to use your number) $60B/year invested in the world's best minds would do in a decade?
Generate hundreds of essentially the same set of studies? Offer no conclusive direct at the end of it? Get them all yachts?
I have a fairly expansive imagination. Unfortunately it has been tinged with a significant quantity of cynicism.
mod parent up for the amusing use of language. +1, Language use.
And, armed with all this information you have what exactly?
A means for fiery debate to continue over decades-old topics with still no consensus, no conformist view?
Don't get me wrong... I believe history and historical perspective have a place. It's just that your argument does not carry the water for this debate.
And I have a hard time rationalizing why on earth anyone 50 years from now, doing any real, substantive work, would care what /. looked like on July 15th, 2009.
I think, in this case, a quick read on the general area from where the attack spawned, coupled with a few large EMP explosions would do the trick...
Well said sir!!
Why is this not modded up?
My kingdom for a mod point!!!
fair enough...
"consider" as opposed to "know about" then. :)
"Go back a couple of centuries more and they were hardly eroticised at all"
Sources?!?
I'm sorry, I realize our tendency is to laugh off such stuff...
But really... if we are willing to allow people to be arrested and thrown in jail for possession of cartoons, how far away is it that the act of just writing a comment could get someone in trouble?
60 years ago most people did not even own a television, let alone even know about the existence of the internet. Many had a newspaper and perhaps a radio. Neither of which offered the volume of content available to individuals today.
I think the OP missed the point. It's not the availability of news that is the problem, nor is it the filtering to tastes, it's a combination of apathy, time, and format.
Voters just do not feel connected to their government anymore, and many politicians have a hard time connecting with voters. Reporters have a 30 second spot on which to discuss a topic - plenty of time I'm sure to explore anything complex. The Internet offers the ability to more closely follow a given subject, but time pushes back as to what extent the individual can digest information in volume.
What you see now are a bunch of semi-informed folks jumping from one site to another, posting witty comments based on their narrow view of a subject, without ever really appreciating the depth/breadth of the subject.
I would attribute this in part to the culture shift underway in our society, where discussion among individuals has been relegated to trite comments on /. and bulletin boards, as opposed to attending meetings and engaging in real dialogue with other individuals in a face to face fashion. People are not invested in the dialogue, therefore their knowledge suffers as does the content of the conversation.
Something is being lost when we are not held accountable for our words, and not expecting our words to count. Have you ever watched a politician attend / speak at a town hall meeting? They struggle through with their sound bites, because the format forces a more thorough dialogue of the subject matter.
The problem is simple. Newspapers get updated ?daily? at most?
We don't live in that world anymore. Newspapers are going to die as the aging population who still hold onto them pass on.
This is true of ANY media source.
When was the last time you read an encyclopedia? Wikipedia anyone? Why is that? Could it be that WP is actually updated and maintained on a regular basis? That the relevance of the material is pertinent to its readership... right NOW? Imagine opening a 6-month old encyclopedia and looking up Haiti. No links, no pertinent news, nothing. Just old news.
Books... well, we'll have the classics. But do you really see the book trend continuing? Take college for an example. Right now, you buy an accounting book, published in 2008, 2009, or 2010... You attend class, and everyone in that class has the same book, by the same author. But there are 400 other books on Accounting out there. Some might have better content on a given subject than the author of your chosen book does. What then? Buy two books? No. The answer is in plain sight. The "Accounting Wiki" or something similar, where all these authors contribute to the depth/breadth of it. We're not there yet because, well, we're just not there yet. But it IS coming.
People really need to get their heads around this and contemplate the sheer magnitude of change this world is facing.
Now I'm not saying that "stories" are going to die, or that fiction / non-fiction, etc... will die, but I do believe the distribution of these stories is changing and will continue to change until books have become obsolete. Have you ever read a good book of fiction? What if the author could offer a multitude of variations of their works? Children's version, adult version, alternate ending... the opportunities are truly limitless, once you get past the notion of a "forever set in stone" story.
Bottom Line:
==========
News happens every second. Information changes more frequently than the archaic information distribution methods are able to keep up with. We live in a 1-second world now. If your site/publication/document/application cannot update itself at high interval, or be updated at high interval, that site/publication/document/application is to soon be as extinct as a dinosaur.
Those that can... they will succeed. Those that can't... well...
I really think that the most fundamental problem these industries are facing right now is a lack of imagination on what they can really do/provide/offer.
Get out of the box people!!!
Exit 42.
A light bulb that will not only produce light, but also give off heat and melt the snow as it attempts to accumulate. Oh wait...
Before you get this new law passed you'll need to bribe each of the damned legislature into signing on. That will result in each exempting themselves, or watering down this law so severely as to no longer allow it to accomplish its original goal(s).
This is simple statistics here. This isolated incident is an obvious aberration, an isolated anomaly, incongruous with the result set.
As such we need to use a weighted sample variance, and discard the anomaly from the results.